William  Dunlap 


'ietef. 


William  Dunlap 

^A  Study  of  his  J^ife 

and  Works  and  of  his  "Place  in 

Contemporary  Culture 


By 

Oral  Sumner  Coad,  Ph.D. 


NEW  YORK 

THE  DUNLAP  SOCIETY 
M  CM  XVII 


Copyright,  1917,  by 
THE  DUNLAP  SOCIETY 


a 

<t     . 

/MIA) 


This  is  one  of  an  edition  of  four  hundred  and  twenty-three 

copies  printed  from  type  for  The  Dunlap  Society 

in  the  month  of  June,  1917,  by 

The  DeVinne  Press 


30419 


Contents 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  I 3 

Biography  from  ij66  to  1805 

i  Youth  and  Early  Plays, 
ii  The  American  Theatre  in  the  Eighteenth 

Century, 
in  Career  as  a  Theatrical  Manager. 

CHAPTER  II 82 

Biography  from  1805  to  itfjp 

i  Second  Connection  with  the  Theatre  and 

State  Position. 

ii  Career  as  a  Professional  Painter, 
in  Last  Years. 

CHAPTER  III      . 129 

The  Original  Plays 

i  American  Drama  before  1790. 
ii  Dunlap's  Plays, 
in  His  Place  in  American  Drama. 

CHAPTER  IV 193 

The  Dramatic  Translations 

i  From  the  French. 
ii  From  Kotzebue. 
in  From  Other  German  Playwrights. 


Contents 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  V 244 

The  Non-Dramatic  Writings 

i  Biographies. 
ii  Histories, 
in  Journalism, 
iv  A  Novel. 

CHAPTER  VI .     .     .     280 

Conclusion 

LISTS  OF  DUNLAP'S  WRITINGS  AND 
PAINTINGS      ..........     284 

INDEX      ...........    303 


[via] 


of 


William  Dunlap frontispiece 

Engraving  in  mezzotint  by  Max  Rosenthal,  from  a 
portrait  by  Ingham,  painted  in  1838 


facing- page 

The  artist  displaying  one  of  his  paintings  to  his 
parents 16 

By  William  Dunlap 

(From  the  original  picture  painted  in  1788  and  now  in  the 
possession  of  The  New  York  Historical  Society) 


William  Dunlap 96 

Prom  a  rare  contemporary  lithograph 
(Now  in  the  collection  of  William  B.  Osgood  Field) 

Townsend  Harris's  Receipt  from  William  Dunlap 
for  his  copy  of  the  "  History  of  the  American 
Theatre" 112 

(Now  in  the  collection  of  William  B.  Osgood  Field) 

Charles  Brockden  Brown  ........   248 

From  a  miniature  by  William  Dunlap,  about  1806 
(Now  in  the  possession  of  Herbert  Lee  Pratt) 


Deface 

THE  last  few  years  have  seen  a  noticeable  quick 
ening  of  interest  in  early  American  drama.  This 
is  not  at  all  surprising,  for  the  field  is  one  of  much 
attractiveness  from  the  antiquarian  point  of  view, 
even  though  the  plays  themselves  are  not  of  high 
excellence.  In  any  consideration  of  the  subject, 
William  Dunlap  must  be  given  a  prominent  place. 
As  a  playwright  and  manager,  he  was  the  dom 
inating  personage  in  our  theatrical  affairs  at  the 
end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  But  he  was  more 
than  this.  He  was  a  biographer  and  historian,  he 
was  in  some  measure  a  journalist  and  novelist, 
and  he  was  very  much  of  a  painter.  In  short,  he 
participated  in  nearly  all  the  cultural  activities  of 
his  day.  For  a  study  of  so  important  a  figure 
there  is  ample  justification. 

It  is  my  purpose  in  the  following  pages,  first  of 
all  to  present  as  complete  an  account  of  Dunlap's 
life  as  the  available  material  will  permit.  In  this 
connection  his  work  as  a  theatrical  manager  and 
as  an  artist  will  be  discussed.  Then  his  writings, 
particularly  his  dramatic  writings,  will  be  ex 
amined  in  detail  in  an  effort  to  estimate  his  con 
tribution  to  the  literature  of  his  generation. 
Throughout  the  book  I  shall  have  a  good  deal  to 
say  about  the  early  culture  of  this  country,  both 
as  a  background  for  Dunlap's  undertakings  and  as 


preface 

a  means  of  pointing  out  his  services  to  the  in 
tellectual  development  of  the  new  nation. 

The  existing  material  bearing  on  his  life  is  at 
best  limited,  and  for  me  it  has  been  limited  further 
still.  The  owner  of  seven  of  the  eleven  known 
volumes  of  Dunlap's  manuscript  Diary  has  been 
unwilling  to  give  me  access  to  them,  and  thus  a 
possible  source  of  information  has  been  cut  off. 
However,  if  one  may  judge  from  the  four  avail 
able  volumes,  the  other  seven  contain  details  which 
would  amplify,  but  in  no  way  alter,  the  outline  of 
his  life  as  presented  elsewhere. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  acknowledge  my  obligation  to 
those  who  have  helped  to  make  this  book  possible. 
Among  the  members  of  the  Columbia  faculty  I 
wish  to  thank  especially  Professor  W.  P.  Trent, 
under  whose  direction  this  investigation  has  been 
conducted;  and  Professor  A.  H.  Thorndike,  Pro 
fessor  Brander  Matthews,  and  Dr.  Carl  Van 
Doren,  who  have  given  much  valuable  advice. 
They  have  also  assisted  by  reading  manuscript  and 
proof.  Dr.  Frederick  W.  Atkinson,  President  of  the 
Brooklyn  Polytechnic  Institute,  has  cordially  per 
mitted  me  the  use  of  his  splendid  collection  of  early 
American  plays.  Mr.  Oscar  Wegelin,  by  his  bibli 
ographies  and  his  personal  suggestions,  has  dis 
tinctly  facilitated  my  task.  To  the  courtesy  of 
the  Columbia,  Yale,  and  Brown  librarians,  and  also 
those  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  the  New 
York  Public  Library,  and  the  Society  Library, 
I  am  very  deeply  indebted.  In  studying  Dunlap  as 
a  painter  I  have  been  greatly  aided  by  the  Mac- 


beth  Gallery  and  the  Ehrich  Galleries,  by  The  Play 
ers,  by  Mr.  Thomas  B.  Clarke  and  Mr.  Charles 
Henry  Hart,  as  well  as  by  Professor  Theodore  S. 
Woolsey  of  Yale  University.  To  my  wife,  who 
has  given  generous  and  varied  assistance,  and  to 
Mr.  Evert  Jansen  Wendell,  whose  interest  and  en 
couragement  have  been  one  of  the  most  pleasant 
features  of  the  work,  I  owe  a  peculiar  debt  of 
gratitude. 

ORAL  SUMNER  COAD. 

New  York  City,  April  7,  1917. 


[xiii] 


William  Dunlap 


William  33unlap 


CHAPTER  I 
BIOGRAPHY  FROM  1766  TO  1805 


WHEN  General  Wolfe  came  to  the  Western 
Hemisphere  to  wrest  Canada  from  the 
French,  there  accompanied  him  in  the  ranks  of  the 
47th  regiment,  known  as  "Wolfe's  Own,"  a  young 
Irishman  named  Samuel  Dunlap.  Our  informa 
tion  regarding  his  family  is  meagre.  We  know 
only  that  he  was  the  son  of  a  Londonderry  mer 
chant,  that  he  had  three  sisters,  and  that  the  pater 
nal  name  was  originally  Dunlop.  At  the  battle  of 
Quebec  he  carried  the  colors,  and  mingled  his 
blood  with  that  of  his  commander  on  the  Plains  of 
Abraham.  Subsequently  the  young  soldier  re 
ceived  a  lieutenant's  commission  from  General 
Amherst,  and  served  through  the  remainder  of  the 
French  war.  After  the  British  triumph,  his  regi 
ment  was  stationed  at  Perth  Amboy  in  the  colony 
of  New  Jersey.  Here  Lieutenant  Dunlap  fell  in 
love  with  Margaret  Sargeant,  a  native  of  New 
Jersey  of  English  descent.  The  lure  of  Hymen 
proving  stronger  than  the  lure  of  Mars,  Dunlap 

3 


4  f^HIiam  SDunlap 

sold  his  commission,  married  Miss  Sargeant,  and 
established  himself  as  a  storekeeper  in  the  town.1 

Perth  Amboy  then  contained  not  more  than 
three  hundred  houses,  but  it  could  boast  consider 
able  prosperity  and  importance.  Admirably  located 
on  a  fine  harbor  at  the  junction  of  the  Raritan 
River  and  Staten  Island  Sound,  it  had  become  the 
capital  of  the  province,  a  garrison  town,  and  a 
social  center  for  the  New  Jersey  aristocracy.2 

On  the  igth  of  February,  1766,  a  son— their 
first  and  only  child — was  born  to  Samuel  and  Mar 
garet  Dunlap.  Him  they  christened  William. 
"Among  my  earliest  recollections/'  he  wrote  in 
after  life,  "are  those  connected  with  sickness,  and 
the  relief  derived  from  being  carried  in  the  arms 
of  my  father."3 

William's  education  was  begun  by  his  mother. 
But  while  yet  in  petticoats,  he  was  sent  to  learn  his 
letters  at  a  dame-school,  kept  by  Mrs.  Randall,  and 
thence  was  transferred  to  the  strap  and  ferule  of 
Master  McNaughton,  a  black-looking  Irishman. 
His  more  regular  tuition  started  under  Thomas 
Johnston,  an  Oxonian  who  was  engaged  in  1774  to 

1  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  X,  p.  265 ;  Dunlap,  "History 
of  the  American  Theatre,"  New  York  edition,  p.  233,  and 
"History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Arts  of  Design 
in  the  United  States,"  Vol.  I,  p.  244.    Unless  otherwise  in 
dicated,  the  information  in  this  chapter  is  obtained  from 
the  latter  two  works.     See  autobiographical  section  in 
each. 

2  W.  A.  Whitehead,  "Contributions  to  the  Early  History 
of  Perth  Amboy  and  Adjoining  Counties,"  New  York, 
1856,  Chapter  III. 

3  "American  Theatre,"  p.  233. 


25iograj>l)p  from  1 7  fifi  to  1  Bfl5         5 

teach  the  youth  of  Perth  Amboy.  While  a  new 
school-house,  toward  which  Samuel  Dunlap  con 
tributed  six  pounds,  was  building,  classes  were 
held  in  the  court-house.  The  hours  of  instruction 
were  6  to  8,  10  to  12,  and  3  to  6.4 

For  companions  William  had  the  family  slaves, 
who  petted,  indulged,  and  spoiled  him;  and  the 
soldiers  of  his  father's  old  regiment,  with  whom 
the  boy  was  a  great  favorite.  But  his  chief  friend 
and  instructor  was  Thomas  Bartow,  "an  aged  man 
who  lived  almost  the  life  of  a  hermit,  having 
neither  wife  nor  child."5  He  was  a  man  of  some 
means  and  occupied  a  comfortable  house,  sur 
rounded  by  a  fruit  garden  very  attractive  to  a 
small  boy.  It  was  the  only  house  in  town  without 
slaves.  Between  this  old  solitary  and  the  child 
there  grew  up  a  close  intimacy,  productive  of  much 
good  to  one  of  them  at  least.  William  was  per 
mitted  every  Sunday  to  visit  his  venerable  friend, 
with  whom  he  was  always  sure  of  a  welcome.  The 
house  and  garden  were  at  the  youngster's  com 
mand,  and  sometimes  he  achieved  the  dignity  of 
riding  behind  "old  Sorrel."  From  the  lips  of 
Thomas  Bartow  he  first  heard  the  stories  of  Troy 
and  Latium,  of  Heaven  and  Hell,  as  commentaries 
on  the  pictures  which  excited  his  admiration  in  the 
old  man's  Homer  and  Vergil  and  Milton.  Thus 
began  the  love  of  pictures  and  books  which  was  to 
shape  the  lad's  whole  career.  Soon  he  was  able  to 
read  for  himself,  and  Bartow's  library  became  his 

4  Whitehead,  pp.  291-3 ;  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  247. 

5  'American  Theatre,"  p.  234. 


6  IDiiliani  Duniap 

delight.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution  Bar- 
tow  withdrew  to  Pennsylvania,  and  William  saw 
him  no  more.  But  Dunlap  never  forgot  his  debt  to 
this  kindly  preceptor  of  his  youth,  nor  neglected 
the  opportunity  to  express  his  obligation. 

In  1775,  in  company  with  his  father,  William 
first  journeyed  to  New  York.  There  he  saw  on 
every  hand  signs  of  the  impending  struggle. 
Weapons  were  for  sale  in  the  shop  windows,  and 
men  were  practising  the  use  of  arms  in  the  streets. 
At  Perth  Amboy  all  was  preparation  for  war.  The 
townsmen  formed  themselves  into  a  battalion.  The 
boys  in  imitation  organized  a  company,  "The  Gov 
ernor's  Guards,"  and  paraded  with  wooden  guns 
and  swords.  They  assumed  the  character  of 
rebels,  and  wore  on  their  caps  the  motto,  "Liberty 
or  Death."  Young  William  was  a  member  of  this 
band.6  Whether  his  loyalist  father  gave  him  an 
object  lesson  in  methods  of  quelling  rebellion,  he 
has  not  seen  fit  to  record. 

The  Continentals  began  filling  the  village;  the 
British  appeared  on  the  shore  of  Staten  Island ;  a 
conflict  was  imminent.  Accordingly  the  Dunlap 
family  withdrew  up  the  Raritan  River  to  a  place 
near  New  Brunswick.  William  spent  the  summer 
of  1776  in  delicious  freedom,  rambling,  fishing, 
swimming,  and,  rather  precociously,  reading  Shake 
speare  and  every  other  book  he  could  lay  his 
hands  on. 

After  the  occupation  of  Perth  Amboy  by  the 
British,  the  family  returned  and  spent  the  winter 

«  Whitehead,  p.  328. 


2&io0rajrt)p  from  17fifi  to  1B05        7 

at  home.  Here  William  lived  in  the  midst  of  sol 
diers  of  divers  nations,  English,  Highland,  Hes 
sian,  who  thronged  his  father's  house ;  and  he  saw 
all  the  abominations  of  a  crowded  camp.  With 
admiring  eyes  he  watched  a  detachment  march 
proudly  out  of  town  to  procure  forage.  As  he  re 
called  long  after : 

"In  the  evening  it  was  known  that  this  gallant 
military  array  were  returning,  their  wagons  loaded 
with  wounded,  instead  of  the  booty  they  went  in 
search  of.  By  the  fireside  I  heard  the  heavy  rum 
bling  of  the  wagons  over  the  frozen  earth,  and  the 
groans  of  those  who  were  borne  to  the  hospitals. 
I  had  now  seen  something  of  war."7 

In  the  spring  of  1777  Samuel  Dunlap  moved 
with  his  family  to  New  York,  the  British  head 
quarters.  The  city  was  to  be  the  field  of  the  future 
writer  and  painter's  major  activities.  He  was  to 
see  it  grow  into  a  metropolis  of  300,000,  but  in 
1777  New  York  was  a  town  of  not  over  22,000  in 
habitants.  It  stretched  as  far  north  as  the  present 
Grand  Street  in  the  older  and  more  extensive  east 
ern  section,  but  only  as  far  as  Duane  Street  on  the 
west.  Beyond  were  swamps,  farms,  and  pastures 
in  which  the  citizens  kept  their  cows.  Along  the 
southwest  shore  of  the  island  lay  the  Battery,  an 
earthwork  about  1450  feet  long,  founded  on  the 
rocks,  and  mounted  with  guns.  Behind  this  wall 
stood  Fort  George,  a  substantial  piece  of  masonry ; 
and  immediately  north  of  the  fort  was  the  Bowling 

7  "American  Theatre,"  p.  237. 


8  IDii iiam  Dunlap 

Green,  a  small  oval  park.  Perhaps  the  most  im 
portant  and  fashionable  thoroughfare  in  the  city 
was  Wall  Street.  Queen  Street  (now  Pearl)  and 
Water  Street  were  the  main  business  sections, 
Broadway  being  of  less  prominence.  The  Bowery 
was  a  spacious  avenue  leading  to  the  country,  and 
lined  with  farm-houses  and  gardens.  A  number 
of  the  old  Dutch  houses,  with  gables  to  the  street, 
were  still  to  be  found,  but  the  prevailing  type  of 
residence  was  English.  The  city  contained  several 
fine  mansions,  surrounded  by  yards  and  gardens. 
The  principal  buildings  were  St.  Paul's  Church 
(Trinity  was  destroyed  by  fire  in  1776),  the  City 
Hall,  the  Hospital,  and  King's  College.8 

Shortly  after  coming  to  New  York,  William  wit 
nessed  his  first  play,  "The  Beaux'  Stratagem."  It 
was  given  by  a  company  of  English  soldiers.  But 
to  him  the  actors  were  creatures  of  another  world, 
and  he  abandoned  himself  to  the  splendid  illusion. 

The  boy  was  again  put  to  school,  first  under  a 
man  named  Leslie  and  then  under  Thomas  Steele, 
a  Quaker,  until  an  unfortunate  accident  brought 
his  school  days  to  an  abrupt  termination.  Among 
the  Amboy  families  which  had  taken  up  residence 
in  New  York  was  that  of  Andrew  Elliot.  It  con 
tained  a  large  brood  of  children.  One  day  in  the 
spring  of  1778  William  dined  with  them,  and  after 
dinner  the  boys  engaged  in  a  mimic  battle  of  chips. 

8  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  39-41 ;  T.  E.  V.  Smith,  "The 
City  of  New  York  in  the  Year  of  Washington's  Inaugura 
tion,  1789,"  New  York,  1889,  Chapter  I ;  F.  B.  Hough, 
"Statistics  of  Population  of  the  City  and  County  of  New 
York,"  New  York,  1866. 


25iogropljp  from  1 7  fifi  to  1 B05        9 

A  missile  struck  the  guest's  right  eye.  He  was 
carried  home  and  given  careful  treatment,  but  to 
no  purpose,  for  the  sight  of  the  eye  had  been 
totally  destroyed.  By  this  mishap  he  was  tem 
porarily  deprived  of  his  three  favorite  amuse 
ments  :  the  theatre,  reading,  and  drawing. 

His  health  restored,  William  began  helping  in 
the  looking-glass  and  china  store  which  his  father 
had  established  in  New  York.  Apparently  his 
duties  were  not  onerous,  since  he  found  time  for 
much  reading,  the  acquisition  of  a  little  French, 
and  two  attempts  at  dramatic  composition,— one 
on  the  story  of  Abou  Hassan  in  the  "Arabian 
Nights,"  and  the  other  a  tragedy  on  some  incidents 
in  Persian  history.  He  likewise  tried  copying 
prints,  at  which  he  gained  so  much  proficiency 
that  his  father  was  impressed  and  sought  out  a 
teacher.  The  teacher  disappeared  after  a  few  les 
sons  ;  but  the  boy  thought  he  had  learned  enough 
art  to  attempt  portraits,  and  he  prevailed  on  his 
indulgent  parent  to  act  as  his  first  subject.  Soon 
he  was  sketching  strangers  in  crayon  at  three 
guineas  a  head.  Thus  at  the  age  of  sixteen  he 
became  a  professional  portraitist.  His  first  oil 
was  a  tavern  sign  representing  Sir  Samuel  Hood, 
painted  to  attract  the  custom  of  sailors. 

The  declaration  of  peace  in  1783  left  Dunlap 
free  to  return  to  his  native  State.  Though  he  had 
passed  the  last  six  years  in  the  stronghold  of  the 
loyalists,  he  emerged  an  ardent  American.  While 
visiting  the  Van  Homes  at  Rocky  Hill  near  Prince 
ton,  where  Congress  was  sitting,  his  patriotism  was 


io 

greatly  stimulated  by  a  sight  of  Washington.  One 
day,  as  he  walked  between  Princeton  and  Trenton, 
he  saw  a  party  of  military  horsemen  approaching. 

"The  center  figure  was  the  tallest  of  the  group, 
and  I  knew  that  I  saw  in  him  the  man  on  whom 
every  thought  centered.  The  eyes  of  the  company 
were  turned  upon  me  as  they  approached.  The 
salutation  of  taking  off  my  cocked  hat  was  per 
formed  with  a  feeling  which  probably  my  face  ex 
pressed.  Instantly  the  salute  was  returned  in  the 
same  manner  by  the  chief,  and  every  hat  in  the 
company  was  lowered  with  its  waving  plume  to 
me.  They  passed,  and  I  gazed  after  them.  It  was 
a  precious  moment.  I  had  seen  Washington."9 

Dunlap  was  soon  privileged  to  meet  the  great 
man  on  more  intimate  terms  at  the  Van  Home 
mansion.  Washington  commended  him  for  his 
painting  and  his  flute-playing,  and  the  boy  was 
supremely  happy.  At  Mr.  Van  Home's  request, 
General  and  Mrs.  Washington  sat  for  their  por 
traits.  The  result  in  the  case  of  Washington  was 
a  very  flat  and  wooden  crayon  picture,  showing  that 
the  young  artist  had  not  yet  mastered  the  secrets 
of  perspective  and  characterization.10  In  the  win 
ter  of  1783-4  he  made  a  full-length  oil  portrait 
of  Washington  on  the  battle-field  of  Princeton, 
with  much  smoke  and  many  soldiers  in  the  back 
ground.  While  thus  engaged,  Dunlap  breakfasted 
and  dined  every  day  at  headquarters  with  the 

»  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  238-9. 

10  There  is  an  engraving  of  this  portrait  by  Augustus 
Robin. 


2&io0rapl)p  from  17fi6  to  1H05       1 1 

Washingtons  and  members  of  Congress.  Wash 
ington  impressed  him  as  reserved  but  not  austere, 
unaffectedly  dignified  and  habitually  polite.  Once 
he  saw  the  General  laugh  heartily  when  he  rode  in 
unexpectedly  upon  the  portly  John  Van  Home, 
who,  having  just  finished  a  hard  race  with  his  pro 
spective  dinner  in  the  shape  of  an  elusive  pig,  rose 
from  the  struggle  with  the  squealing  animal  in  his 
arms  to  find  himself  face  to  face  with  the  Com 
mander  in  Chief. 

The  elder  Dunlap,  with  his  usual  indulgence, 
had  decided  that  William  should  be  sent  to  Lon 
don,  the  Mecca  of  early  American  seekers  after 
culture,  to  learn  art  under  the  great  Benjamin 
West.  The  winter  was  spent  in  preparation  which 
consisted  of  the  study  of  French  and  dancing,  and 
much  attention  to  billiard-playing,  card-parties, 
balls,  and  sleigh-rides. 

On  the  4th  of  May,  1784,  the  aspirant  sailed  for 
England  on  the  good  ship  Betsy,  taking  with  him 
as  credentials  the  full-length  Washington  and  a 
copy  from  Copley.  Upon  his  arrival  at  London 
about  the  middle  of  June,  Dunlap  hastened  to  in 
troduce  himself  to  West,  and  to  display  his  pictures, 
which  were  mildly  praised.  He  established  him 
self  in  two  rooms  in  Rathbone  Place,  and  after  a 
sufficiency  of  sight-seeing,  settled  to  sketching 
from  a  pair  of  busts.  The  drawings  gained  him 
permission  to  enter  the  academy  at  Somerset 
House,  a  privilege  of  which  he  did  not  avail  him 
self  because  of  bashfulness.  When  winter  came 
he  reveled  in  the  theatres  and  saw  most  of  the  sue- 


12  iMltam  SDunlap 

cessful  dramas  of  the  day,  including  "The  School 
for  Scandal"  and  'The  Critic"  with  the  original 
casts.  The  Bannisters,  Kemble,  Mrs.  Jordan,  and 
Henderson  were  his  admiration,  but  to  the  divine 
Siddons  he  paid  complete  homage.  "At  this  time," 
he  said,  "she  was  in  her  prime,  and  her  face  and 
figure  as  perfect  as  her  acting."11 

So  far  as  art  study  was  concerned,  Dunlap  pro 
tested  that  he  accomplished  almost  nothing  the 
first  year,  partly  because  of  the  attraction  of  other 
interests,  partly  because  of  a  protracted  illness  from 
abscesses.  With  the  return  of  health  came  an  over 
flow  of  spirits.  He  was  eager  for  any  indulgence 
his  friends  might  suggest,  and  the  theatre,  excur 
sions,  port  wine,  and  dinners  occupied  his  days 
and  nights.  Among  his  associates  in  frivolity 
West's  son,  Raphael,  was  one  of  the  most  intimate. 
The  American  fell  in  with  an  eating  and  drinking 
club,  with  which  he  became  a  favorite  because  of 
his  wit  and  ability  to  sing  a  good  song.  Benjamin 
West,  whom  he  now  saw  only  on  rare  occasions, 
finding  him  indifferent  to  art,  abandoned  him  to 
his  fate. 

During  his  sojourn  in  England,  Dunlap  made 
only  two  trips  into  the  interior.  With  a  friend  he 
visited  Stamford  in  Lincolnshire,  where  he  saw 
some  fine  pictures  at  the  near-by  Burleigh  House. 
The  natives  were  astonished  to  find  an  American 
who  was  neither  black  nor  copper-colored.  In  the 
autumn  of  1786  he  undertook  a  walking  expedition 
to  Oxford  with  Samuel  L.  Mitchill,  a  New  Yorker 
«  "American  Theatre,"  p.  241. 


1  TBfi  to  1  Bfl5       1 3 

who  had  just  completed  a  medical  course  at  Edin 
burgh.  Equipped  with  the  absolute  necessities, 
they  set  out  on  a  rainy  morning  in  November. 
Over  heavy  roads  they  trudged  with  light  hearts 
to  the  ancient  university  town.  They  were  warmly 
received  by  the  students,  to  whom  two  genuine 
Americans  were  objects  of  no  little  interest.  They 
dined  in  the  college  halls,  drank  wine  in  the 
students'  chambers,  were  shown  about  the  town, 
and  in  general  learned  "as  much  of  Univer 
sity  life  as  a  week's  residence  could  teach"  them.12 
A  day  was  spent  at  Marlborough's  estate,  Blen 
heim,  which  contained  an  excellent  collection  of 
the  works  of  Rubens  and  other  great  painters. 
The  return  trip  was  accomplished  on  foot  via 
Windsor,  where  the  king  and  royal  family  were 
gazed  upon  in  the  chapel. 

Apparently  the  elder  Dunlap  had  begun  to  sus 
pect  that  his  son  was  enjoying  a  rare  good  time  at 
his  expense  without  achieving  the  object  for  which 
he  was  sent.  In  consequence  an  unexpected  sum 
mons  caused  William  to  e^mbark  for  his  native  land 
in  August,  1787.  The  voyage  required  seven 
weeks,  which  he  whiled  away  by  making  portraits 
of  the  captain,  and  by  helping  to  repaint  the  ship's 
figure-head.  The  traveler  returned  but  little  wiser 
and  less  stalwart  in  character  than  when  he  left,  so 
he  frankly  admitted.  Indeed,  so  far  as  art  study 
was  concerned,  he  seems  to  have  done  little  enough 
during  his  three  years  abroad.  Had  he  applied 
himself  diligently  to  his  easel  and  taken  more  ad- 

12  "American  Theatre,"  p.  244. 


14  lOiiliam  Dunlap 

vantage  of  the  instruction  and  guidance  which 
West  freely  offered,  he  undoubtedly  would  have 
been  a  much  better  painter  than  he  ever  became. 
Yet  in  spite  of  indolence,  the  foreign  residence 
formed  a  valuable  part  of  Dunlap's  preparation 
for  after  life.  He  did  not  entirely  neglect  art;  and 
he  profited  greatly  by  the  opportunity  to  study 
West's  methods,  which  he  later  imitated  with  some 
success.  By  viewing  numerous  collections  of  the 
masters,  he  acquired  a  more  accurate  standard  for 
self-criticism  than  he  could  have  obtained  in  this 
country.  His  frequent  attendance  at  the  theatre 
was  invaluable  to  the  future  director  of  the  New 
York  stage.  Not  only  did  he  become  familiar 
with  the  best  contemporary  plays  and  actors,  but 
also  with  methods  of  presentation.  As  important 
a  gain  as  any  was  the  broadened  outlook  on  the 
world's  culture,  without  which  he  would  have  been 
but  ill  prepared  to  direct,  as  in  some  slight  measure 
he  one  day  was  to  direct,  the  culture  of  the  new 
nation.  If  his  character  suffered  some  bumps  and 
bruises  in  the  process,  the  injury  was  not  irrepa 
rable,  for  his  later  life  was  as  impeccable  as  one 
could  desire. 

Back  in  New  York,  Dunlap  installed  himself  in 
his  father's  house  as  a  portrait  painter,  an  occupa 
tion  which  did  not  seriously  interfere  with  his 
leisure,  though  he  was  almost  the  only  portraitist 
the  city  possessed.  The  theatre  claimed  his  major 
interest  and  soon  enlisted  his  pen.  The  glories  of 
the  English  stage  were  fresh  in  his  memory,  and 
the  recent  success  of  "The  Contrast"  by  the  Ameri- 


from  1  THfi  to  1 B05       1 5 

can  Tyler13  was  still  a  subject  of  comment.  Thus 
doubly  inspired,  Dunlap,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
weeks,  composed  "The  Modest  Soldier ;  or,  Love  in 
New  York,"  a  five-act  comedy.  His  friends  praised 
it  warmly.  Undoubtedly  it  would  prove  a  triumph 
on  the  boards.  But  the  problem  was  "to  approach 
those  awful  personages,  the  managers."  The  gap 
was  bridged  by  the  good  offices  of  an  English 
actor  then  residing  in  New  York.  To  him  the  play 
was  read  over  a  bottle  of  Madeira,  and  pro 
nounced,  perhaps  in  consideration  of  the  bottle, 
"excellent,  wanted  a  little  pruning,  but  far  less 
than  'She  Stoops  to  Conquer,'  when  Goldsmith 
read  it  to  us  in  the  green-room."14  An  introduc 
tion  to  the  managers,  Hallam  and  Henry,  was  now 
forthcoming.  The  comedy  was  read  to  them  and 
accepted.  Yet  its  appearance  was  postponed  from 
month  to  month,  much  to  the  author's  mystification 
until  he  discovered  the  reason  to  be  that  there  were 
no  parts  suited  to  Henry  and  his  wife.  Thus 
ended  the  first  chapter  of  Dunlap's  dramatic 
career. 

But  he  did  not  entirely  forsake  his  studio.  One 
product  of  this  period  still  survives  in  the  collec 
tion  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  a  paint 
ing  made  in  1788  which  represents  himself 
showing  a  picture  to  his  parents.  It  is  a  poorly 
drawn  affair,  yet  it  is  interesting  as  an  early  por 
trait  of  the  painter.  At  this  time  also  he  took  up 
etching,  a  branch  of  art  of  which  he  made  very 

13  See  post,  pp.  133  ff. 

14  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  77-8. 


1 6  lOilliani  sDunlap 

little  use;  but  when  Tyler's  "Contrast"  was  pub 
lished  in  1790,  it  contained  as  frontispiece  a  badly 
drawn  Dunlap  etching  of  one  of  the  scenes. 

Possessing  as  he  did  the  power  to  attract  people 
of  widely  different  temperaments,  William  Dun- 
lap  was  always  blest  with  numerous  good  friends. 
Soon  after  his  return  from  England  he  became  a 
member  of  the  Philological  Society,  a  literary  or 
ganization  formed  for  mutual  instruction  and  im 
provement, — then  a  popular  type  of  social  group. 
Among  his  fellow-members  were  Noah  Webster 
and  Samuel  Mitchill.  This  association  stimulated 
in  him  more  regular  habits  of  study  and  a  desire 
for  literary  achievement.  He  planned  an  epic  on 
Aristomenes  and  wrote  some  hundred  verses. 
But  other  friends  he  had,  of  a  less  serious  turn  of 
mind,  who  persuaded  him  to  join  the  Masons  and 
the  Black  Friars.  The  latter  was  a  society  estab 
lished  in  1784  for  social,  charitable,  and  humane 
purposes ;  but  its  influence,  as  well  as  that  of  the 
Masons,  would  seem  to  have  been  not  altogether 
on  the  side  of  virtue,  for  Dunlap  said  he  was  saved 
from  their  contamination  only  by  marriage.15 

The  "New  York  Daily  Gazette"  of  Monday, 
February  16,  1789,  contained  this  news  item: 

"On  Tuesday  last  was  married,  by  the  Revd.  Mr. 
Moore,  Mr.  WILLIAM  DUNLAP,  an  eminent  Por 
trait  Painter,  and  Member  of  the  Philological  So 
ciety,  only  son  of  Mr.  Samuel  Dunlap,  Merchant, 

15  "New  York  Directory,"  1793,  p.  235 ;  "Arts  of  De 
sign,"  Vol.  I,  p.  267. 


The  artist  displaying  one  of  his  paintings  to  his  parents 
By   William  Dunlap 


25io0tapl)p  ftom  1  7Hfi  to  1 B05        17 

Queen-Street,  to  the  amiable  and  accomplished 
Miss  NABBY  WOOLSEY,  of  Fairfield,  in  Connecti 
cut." 

Miss  Nabby,  Betsey,  or  Elizabeth  Woolsey  was 
descended  from  an  old  New  York  family,  the 
English  founder  of  which  came  to  New  Amster 
dam  in  1623,  and  became  a  prosperous  trader.  Of 
this  line  was  Benjamin  Woolsey,  who  graduated 
from  Yale,  and  reared  a  large  family,  including 
Elizabeth,  born  in  1768.  He  died  in  1771,  leaving 
the  family  in  financial  embarrassment.16  Dunlap's 
marriage  brought  him  into  association  with  Eliza 
beth's  brother-in-law,  Timothy  Dwight,  later  presi 
dent  of  Yale.  From  him  Dunlap  received  much 
intellectual  inspiration.  Thanks  to  the  new  re 
lationships,  he  was  now  saved  from  "inevitable  de 
struction."17 

About  this  time  the  Philological  Society  died, 
and  from  its  ashes  sprang  the  Friendly  Club,  which 
became  one  of  the  leading  literary  circles  of  New 
York.  It  numbered  among  its  members  Elihu 
Hubbard  Smith,  William  Johnson,  Samuel  Latham 
Mitchill,  Samuel  Miller,  Anthony  Bleecker, 
William  Walton  Woolsey,  John  Wells,  James 
Kent,  and  William  Dunlap.  Nearly  all  these 
young  men  were  college  graduates  with  a  strong 

16  For  genealogy  of  the  Woolsey   family  see  Walter 
Barrett,  "The  Old  Merchants  of  New  York  City/'  New 
York,  1885;  Benjamin  W.  Dwight,  "History  of  the  De 
scendants  of  John  Dwight  of  Dedham,  Massachusetts/' 
New  York,  1874;  Elizabeth  Woolsey  Rowland,  "Family 
Records,"  1900. 

17  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  267. 


1 8  IMliam  SDunlap 

interest  in  cultural  pursuits,  and  their  influence 
on  the  development  of  Dunlap's  mind  must  have 
been  very  beneficial.18  The  club,  which  was  rather 
typical  of  those  organizations  by  which  our  early 
citizens  sought  to  appease  their  intellectual  crav 
ings,  met  every  Tuesday  evening  at  the  homes  of 
the  members  in  rotation.  The  host  read  from  a 
favorite  author  and  directed  a  discussion  of  the 
passage,  after  which  light  refreshments  were 
served.  It  is  said  that  George  Washington  was  a 
frequent  visitor  at  these  weekly  sessions.  The 
Friendlies  projected  several  literary  works,  and 

18  This  group  was  unusual  in  the  distinctions  which 
came  to  its  members  subsequently.  Smith  became  the 
center  of  the  literary  society  of  New  York.  He  pub 
lished  several  works,  and  as  a  physician  helped  found, 
and  for  a  time  edited,  the  "Medical  Repository."  Johnson 
was  a  lawyer,  and  was  for  many  years  the  reporter  for 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State.  He  was  a  classical 
scholar  and  editor  of  legal  works.  Mitchill  was  a  phy 
sician,  surgeon-general  of  the  State,  a  scientist  of  emi 
nence,  a  professor  at  Columbia,  a  United  States  senator, 
a  man  of  advanced  ideas,  a  leader  in  all  civic  and  philan 
thropic  enterprises,  and  the  author  of  several  works. 
Miller  became  a  prominent  theologian  and  polemical 
writer,  and  a  professor  at  Princeton.  Bleecker  was  a 
lawyer,  a  prolific  contributor  to  periodicals,  a  founder  of 
the  New  York  Historical  Society,  a  patron  of  arts  and 
letters,  and  a  leader  in  public  affairs.  Woolsey  was  Dun- 
lap's  brother-in-law.  He  entered  the  hardware  business, 
and  became  a  wealthy  man.  He  was  the  father  of  Theo 
dore  Dwight  Woolsey,  president  of  Yale.  Wells  was  a 
prominent  lawyer  who  was  associated  with  Hamilton  in 
bringing  put  the  "Federalist."  Kent  gained  more  perma 
nent  distinction  than  any  other  member  of  the  club.  As 
chief  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State,  and 
chancellor  of  New  York,  and  as  the  author  of  "Commen 
taries  on  American  Law,"  he  was  one  of  the  chief  found 
ers  of  American  jurisprudence. 


2&iogropJ)p  from  1 T  fifi  to  1 Bfl5       1 9 

actually  maintained  at  different  times  a  magazine 
and  a  review,  to  both  of  which  Dunlap  contributed. 
The  society  continued  its  existence  until  anni 
hilated  by  political  differences  about  i8oo.19 

Dunlap's  first  ill-fated  attempt  at  drama  had 
met  with  sufficient  praise  to  call  forth  a  second 
comedy,  written  sometime  in  1788.  Having 
parts  suited  to  Henry  and  his  wife,  it  was  readily 
accepted  by  that  gentleman,  and  exposed  to  the 
smoky  glare  of  the  tallow  footlights  in  the  fall  of 
1789.  The  newspaper  advertisement  was  thus 
worded : 

The  public  are  refpectfully  informed  that  the 
THEATRE  will  be  opened  on  MONDAY,  the  7th 
of  September,  with  a  COMEDY,  never  yet  per 
formed,  (written  by  a  gentleman  of  this  city), 
called, 

The  FATHER, 

Or,  American  Shandyifm. 

The  Prologue  by  Mr.  WIGNELL.— The  Epilogue 

by  Mrs.  HENRY. 

To  which  will  be  added  a  FARCE,  called, 
Who's  the  Dupe. 

HALLAM  and  HENRY.20 

19  See  "American  Theatre,"  p.   114;  "New  York  Mir 
ror,"  Vol.  X,  p.  265;  Martha  J.  Lamb,  "History  of  the 
City  of  New  York:  Its  Origin,  Rise  and  Progress,"  New 
York  and  Chicago,   1877-80,  Vol.  II,  p.  519;   "Monthly 
Recorder,"  April,  1813;  James  Grant  Wilson,  "Memorial 
History  of  the  City  of  New  York,"  New  York,  1893,  Vol. 
IV,  p.  233.    Mrs.  Lamb,  Vol.  II,  p.  468,  speaks  also  of  a 
Drone  Club  to  which  Dunlap  belonged  at  about  this  time, 
with  almost  the  same  membership  as  the  Friendly  Club. 

20  "Daily  Advertiser,"  September  5,  1789. 


20  HMUiam  SDunlap 

The  play  was  glowingly  announced  by  the 
"Daily  Gazette"  of  August  26: 

"The  town  is,  at  present,  in  very  great  expecta 
tion  of  seeing  a  comedy,  now  in  rehearsal,  which  is 
a  production  of  a  gentleman  in  this  place,  much 
celebrated  for  his  wit  and  humor ;  besides  his  great 
ability  in  the  Dramatick,  he  has  a  peculiar  talent  in 
the  Lyrick  way  of  writing,  and  that  in  a  manner 
wholly  new  and  unknown.  As  soon  as  three 
hundred  Shandean  subscribers  are  obtained,  the 
work  will  be  put  to  the  press." 

"The  Father"  was  given  seven  times  altogether, 
which  was  doing  very  well  for  an  American 
play.21  Except  "The  Contrast,"  no  other  had  fared 
so  well;  according  to  existing  standards,  there 
fore,  it  was  a  success.  Dunlap  said  the  flattering 
reception  of  the  comedy  fixed  his  attention  upon 
drama.  He  may  even  have  meditated  becoming 
an  actor;  in  the  opinion  of  Ireland  he  probably 
would  have  done  so  but  for  the  loss  of  his  eye. 

21  Given  four  times  in  quick  succession  at  New  York ; 
appeared  at  Philadelphia  in  February,  1790,  and  again  in 
January,  1791 ;  and  at  Baltimore  in  September,  1790.  My 
information  concerning  the  performance  of  Dunlap's 
plays  throughout  this  chapter  is  obtained  from  his  "Amer 
ican  Theatre" ;  from  G.  O.  Seilhamer,  "History  of  the 
American  Theatre,"  Philadelphia,  1888-91,  Vols.  I,  II,  III ; 
J.  N.  Ireland,  "Records  of  the  New  York  Stage  from 
1750  to  1860,"  New  York,  1866,  Vols.  I,  II ;  and  especially 
from  the  contemporary  issues  of  the  "New  York  Gazette," 
the  "Evening  Post,"  and  the  "Commercial  Advertiser." 
For  the  publication  of  Dunlap's  plays  see  bibliography, 
post,  pp.  284  ff. 


3&iograjrt)P  from  1  TfiB  to  1  Bfl5       2 1 

Duyckinck  is  my  authority  for  the  statement  that 
he  actually  appeared  on  the  stage  once  about 
1795.22 

The  budding  dramatist  was  now  in  some  de 
mand  as  a  writer  of  theatrical  pieces.  Aside  from 
two  prologues  in  the  fall  of  1789,  he  wrote,  at  the 
request  of  the  comedian  Wignell,  an  interlude 
called  "Darby's  Return,"  which  was  given  at  the 
actor's  benefit  on  November  2/j..23  This  trifle  has 
become  associated  with  Washington  because  of 
the  author's  careful  account  of  its  effect  on  him 
when  he  attended  its  representation.  At  the  lines 
alluding  to  the  new  Federal  Constitution,  the  great 
man  deigned  to  smile.  When  he  himself  became 
the  subject  of  Darby's  narrative,  "the  president 
looked  serious ;  and  when  Kathleen  asked,  'How 
looked  he,  Darby?  Was  he  short  or  tall?'  his 
countenance  showed  embarrassment,  from  the  ex 
pectation  of  one  of  those  eulogiums  which  he 
had  been  obliged  to  hear  on  many  public  occasions, 
and  which  must  doubtless  have  been  a  severe  trial 
to  his  feelings;  but  Darby's  answer  that  he  had 
not  seen  him,  because  he  had  mistaken  a  man  'all 
lace  and  glitter,  botherum  and  shine'  for  him  until 
all  the  show  had  passed,  relieved  the  hero  from 
apprehension  of  further  personality,  and  he  in- 

22  Introduction  to  the  play  in  the  "Dramatic  Works  of 
William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  I;  Ireland,  Vol.  I,  p.  80;  Evert 
A.    Duyckinck,  "Cyclopaedia    of    American    Literature," 
Philadelphia,  1881,  Vol.  I,  p.  560. 

23  Performed  three  or  four  times  at  New  York,  once 
as  late  as  November,  1796;  given  twice  at  Philadelphia,  in 
1790  and  1791. 


22  IDilliam  Duniap 

dulged  in  that  which  was  with  him  extremely  rare, 
a  hearty  laugh."24 

Ever  since  his  return  from  England,  portrait- 
painting  had  been  Dunlap's  ostensible  occupation, 
but  his  sitters,  never  numerous,  were  becoming 
fewer,  and  it  was  painfully  apparent  that  art  as  a 
means  of  livelihood  for  the  young  couple  must  be 
abandoned.  Play-writing  was  still  more  pre 
carious.  Again  Samuel  Dunlap  came  to  the  aid  of 
his  son  by  taking  him  into  his  business  as  a 
partner.  Thus  the  devotee  of  art  and  letters  be 
came  transformed  into  a  storekeeper.25  That 
Samuel  had  prospered  as  an  importer  of  china 
and  looking-glasses  is  evident  from  his  ability  to 
maintain  the  old  homestead  in  Perth  Amboy,  to 
send  William  abroad  for  three  years,  and  subse 
quently  to  support  an  artist  and  his  family  in  the 
household.  The  nature  of  the  stock  which  William 
was  now  called  upon  to  handle  may  be  seen  from 
the  firm's  advertisement : 

Samuel  Dunlap,  and  Son, 
No.  13,  Queen  Street,  have  for  fale, 
An   afjortment   of  cut  and  plain   Glafs 
VASE  LAMPS,  LOOKING  GLASSES, 
and  affortment  of  China,  including  table 
fets,  tea  fets,  &c.    An  affortment  of  green 
and  blue  edged  Ware,  in  fets  or  feparate. 
Hyfon  and  Souchong  tea.26 

24  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  84-5. 

25  The  change  probably  occurred  early  in  1790,  since  the 
New    York    Directory    for    1789   mentions   the    store   as 
Samuel  Dunlap's,  and  for  1790  as  Dunlap  &  Son's. 

26  "Daily  Advertiser,"  October  21,  1790. 


25iograpl)p  from  l?0fi  to  1B05       23 

This  partnership  was  terminated  within  two 
years  by  the  death  of  the  senior  member.  The  ex 
act  date  of  this  event  I  have  not  been  able  to  learn, 
but  the  will  was  probated  on  January  4,  1792, 
which  indicates  that  he  died  at  the  close  of  the 
previous  year.27  With  his  father  Dunlap  lost  his 
truest  friend.  Always  solicitous  for  his  welfare 
and  progress,  confident  of  his  ability,  and  patient 
with  his  failures,  Samuel  Dunlap  gave  his  son 
every  opportunity  to  make  the  most  of  himself. 

The  business  was  now  conducted  by  the  remain 
ing  partner  alone  for  a  short  time.  About  the 
beginning  of  1793  one  of  the  Woolseys  was  taken 
into  the  firm,  and  he  continued  his  connection  for 
three  years.  In  1796  he  was  supplanted  by  Moses 
Judah.28  The  business  may  have  been  partly  of 
an  itinerant  nature ;  at  any  rate,  Dunlap  made  oc 
casional  visits  to  Boston,  Philadelphia,  and  other 
cities  for  commercial  purposes. 

One  of  his  first  acts  after  his  father's  death 
was  to  free  the  family  slaves,  retaining  some  as 
hired  servants.  He  was  active  in  the  Manumission 
Society,  and  this  deed  proved  the  sincerity  of  his 
pretensions.  In  1793  he  became  a  trustee  of  the 
free  school  for  African  children.29  This  institu 
tion  was  founded  in  1789  by  the  Manumission  So 
ciety.  In  1793  its  enrollment  was  eighty-two.  A 

27  "Collections  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society  for 
1905,"  p.  191.     The  will  left  everything  to  the  testator's 
wife. 

28  See  directories  for  those  years. 

29  Directory  for  1793. 


24  nEHIIiatn  2DunIajj 

master  and  mistress  were  appointed  to  teach  the 
"three  R's"  and  domestic  pursuits  to  negro  children 
of  both  sexes.  A  board  of  twelve  trustees  was 
chosen  from  the  society,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
inspect  the  school  every  month,  and  recommend 
such  measures  as  seemed  necessary.30 

Dunlap  had  now  become  a  paterfamilias.  The 
first  child,  John  Alexander  Bredin,  was  born  De 
cember  14,  1789.  Margaret  Ann  was  born  April 
15,  1791 ;  and  a  second  daughter,  Hester  Mary, 
was  born  August  26,  1792,  but  lived  only  a  year.31 

A  very  important  event  in  Dunlap's  biography 
was  the  arrival  of  Charles  Brockden  Brown  from 
Philadelphia  in  1793.  He  was  soon  taken  into 
the  Friendly  Club,  and  between  him  and  Dunlap 
developed  a  life-long  friendship.  Brown  was 
twenty-two  years  old,  weak  in  body  but  very  alert 
in  mind,  full  of  literary  ambition  and  radical  ideas. 
He  took  up  residence  with  E.  H.  Smith  and 
William  Johnson  in  bachelor  quarters,  the  resort 
of  the  Friendlies.  He  divided  his  time  among  his 
friends,  "sleeping  at  Bachelor's  Hall,  and  other 
wise  domesticated  in  the  family  of  the  author  of 
'The  Father';  until  a  long  and  severe  illness 
rendered  it  necessary  to  remove  him  altogether  to 
the  house  of  the  latter."32  A  close  bond  of  fel 
lowship  was  formed  among  these  four  young  men, 
and  especially  between  Brown  and  Dunlap,  who 

30  "New  York  Magazine ;  or,  Literary  Repository,"  Vol. 
IV,  p.  258. 

31  Dunlap  family  Bible. 

32  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  143-4. 


25iograpljp  from  1 7  fiH  to  1 B05       2  5 

not  only  lived  so  intimately  in  New  York,  but  also 
frequently  summered  together  at  Perth  Amboy.33 

Dunlap's  commercial,  benevolent,  and  social  ac 
tivities  did  not  curb  his  dramatic  endeavors.  In 
the  spring  of  1793  "The  Miser's  Wedding,"  a 
comedy,  "was  played  without  study  or  rehearsal. 
.  .  .  The  piece  was  murdered  (it  deserved  death) 
and  never  heard  of  more."34  On  the  24th  of 
April,  1794,  a  tragedy,  "The  Fatal  Deception;  or, 
The  Progress  of  Guilt,"  written  in  1790,  was 
brought  out  before  a  large  and  favorably  dis 
posed  audience.35  It  was  given  for  the  benefit  of 
John  Hodgkinson.  As  an  additional  attraction  the 
playwright  composed  an  interlude,  "Shelty's 
Travels,"  which  was  spoken  by  the  actor  on  this 
occasion,  and  continued  in  use  as  late  as  1802. 

Dunlap's  literary  adventures  were  not  con 
fined  to  the  drama.  He  also  essayed  poetry  and 
gained  some  slight  distinction,  since  two  of  his 
poems  were  included  beside  the  work  of  Joel  Bar 
low  and  Philip  Freneau  in  a  volume  of  "American 
Poems,  Selected  and  Original,"  edited  by  E.  H. 
Smith  and  published  at  Litchfield,  Connecticut,  in 
1793.  These  two  poems  reappeared  the  next  year 
in  "The  Columbian  Muse,"  printed  at  New  York. 
One  was  "Cololoo— An  Indian  Tale"  of  thirty 

33  Dunlap,  "Life  of  Brown,"  Philadelphia  edition,  Vol. 
I,  p.  56. 

34  "American  Theatre,"  p.  103.     It  was  sometimes  re 
ferred  to  as  "The  Wedding." 

35  Repeated   in   May,   given   at    Philadelphia   the   next 
October,  and  revived  at  New  York  in  April,  1795,  with 
considerable  alteration. 


26  i©fl!iam  SDunlap 

quatrains;  the  other,  "Ella— A  Norwegian  Tale," 
of  about  the  same  length.  Both  are  smooth  and 
rather  spirited,  but  labored  and  artificial  in  diction. 
Two  stanzas  from  "Ella"  will  illustrate: 

"Bright  came  the  morn !  and  bright  in  batter'd  arms 

The  rustic  vet'rans  came ; 
And  many  a  youth,  untried  in  rough  alarms, 
Now  hop'd  a  patriot's  name. 

They  hear'd  from  far  the  hum  of  Sivard's  host; 

Young  Eric  struck  his  shield ; 
Then  high  in  air  his  heavy  spear  he  tost, 

And  blaz'd  along  the  field." 

Dunlap  was  now  well  launched  on  the  career 
of  a  dramatist.  Already  he  had  given  the  stage 
more  plays  than  any  other  native  writer,  and 
from  this  time  on  for  a  decade  he  was  to  re 
main  the  most  prolific  contributor.  In  the  middle 
of  February,  1795,  his  second  tragedy,  "Fontain- 
ville  Abbey,"  written  the  previous  year,  was  pre 
sented  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Hodgkinson  in  the  lead 
ing  parts.  The  staging  seems  to  have  been  quite 
elaborate.  The  piece  was  not  announced  as  the 
work  of  an  American  because  the  author  felt  that 
such  an  avowal  would  injure  it.  That  Ameri 
can  contempt  for  the  literature  of  this  country 
was  no  idle  fancy  of  Dunlap's  was  amply  proved 
by  the  experience  of  many  contemporary  writers, 
dramatic  and  otherwise.  As  late  as  1820  James 
Fenimore  Cooper  attempted  to  give  currency  to 
his  first  novel  by  publishing  it  as  an  English  work, 


from  1 7  fifi  to  1 B05       2  7 

American  authors  still  being  lightly  esteemed. 
None  the  less,  "Fontainville  Abbey"  was  warmly 
praised ;  writer,  manager,  actors,  and  scene-painter 
were  all  highly  commended.  On  February  23 
it  was  repeated  under  very  adverse  circumstances. 
The  villain  was  sick,  and  the  actor  who  undertook 
the  part  was  compelled  to  read  his  lines  from  the 
book,  a  procedure  which  naturally  disconcerted  the 
whole  company.  As  if  this  were  not  a  sufficient 
handicap,  the  fifth  act  was  disturbed  by  an  alarm 
of  fire.  At  the  third  performance  all  this  was 
changed;  it  was  as  perfectly  represented,  so  it 
was  said,  as  any  tragedy  seen  on  the  New  York 
stage  for  many  years.36 

Biographical  information  for  this  period  is 
scant,  but  Dunlap  was  doubtless  occupied  for  the 
greater  part  of  the  time  in  managing  the  store  and 
in  writing.  Somewhere  he  had  picked  up  a  little 
German.  In  the  "New  York  Magazine ;  or,  Liter 
ary  Repository"  of  December,  1795,  appeared  "The 
Zephyrs,  An  Idyl.  (Translated  from  the  German 
of  Gesner  [sic],  by  W.  Dunlap.)"  In  the  January 
number  of  the  same  publication  was  printed  his 
translation  of  Gessner's  "First  Idyl."  A  sentence 
will  show  the  quality  of  the  rendering : 

"Let  me  the  pitcher,  too  heavy  a  load  for  thee, 
to  thy  cottage  carry." 

At  this  point  in  his  career,  Dunlap's  affairs  were 
in  a  promising  condition.  His  financial  circum- 

38  "New  York  Magazine ;  or,  Literary  Repository,"  Vol. 
VI,  pp.  67-9,  130. 


28  nEKHiam  SDunlag 

stances  were  comfortable,  he  was  gaining  a  name 
as  a  competent  dramatist  and  man  of  letters,  and 
he  was  enjoying  the  companionship  of  two  friends, 
E.  H.  Smith  and  C.  B.  Brown,  who  were  as  much 
interested  in  literature  as  he.  Smith  was  engaged 
in  writing  an  opera,  and  Brown  in  projecting 
novels.  Dunlap  was  also  preparing  an  opera, 
"The  Archers,"  on  the  story  of  William  Tell.  It 
was  produced  at  the  New  York  Theatre  on  April 
1 8,  1796,  with  music  composed  by  Benjamin 
Carr.37 

In  the  spring  of  this  year  Dunlap  took  the  most 
fateful  step  of  his  life,  a  step  which  determined  his 
whole  future.  In  his  own  words : 

"About  this  time,  Hodgkinson  pressed  upon  the 
author  of  The  Father  of  an  Only  Child,  ...  a 
purchase  of  his  half  in  the  concerns  of  the  theatre, 
with  the  tempting  bait  of  having  the  sole  con 
trol  of  the  pieces  to  be  brought  before  the  public. 
The  proposition  was  made  on  the  iQth  of  March. 
The  bait  took.  The  enthusiastic  dramatist  seri 
ously  persuaded  himself  that  it  was  his  duty  to 
take  the  direction  of  so  powerful  an  engine  as  the 
stage ;  his  thoughts  at  the  time  lay  open  before  me. 
'If  the  effects  of  the  stage  are  as  great  as  its 
friends  and  enemies  have  concurred  in  represent 
ing  it,  surely  I  should  have  the  power  to  do  much 

37  Repeated  twice  at  New  York.  In  October,  1797,  it 
was  given  twice  at  Boston.  The  music  of  the  opera  is 
now  lost  except  for  two  small  portions,  one  of  which,  a 
song,  is  reproduced  in  Sonneck's  "Early  Opera  in  Amer 
ica,"  opposite  p.  99. 


2Siograirt)p  from  ITfiH  to  1B05       29 

good.'  The  power  of  the  engine  is  certain;  his 
power  to  direct  it  he  ought  to  have  doubted." 

He  was  informed  that  the  theatre  had  cleared 
between  $4000  and  $5000  in  the  last  six  weeks. 
This  and  the  control  of  the  leading  stage  in  the 
United  States,  "not  forgetting  the  power  to  bring 
out  his  own  plays,"  proved  irresistible,  and  ar 
rangements  were  made  for  him  to  assume  his  re 
sponsibilities  about  the  first  of  May.  But  Dun- 
lap's  statement  that  he  was  urged  to  purchase 
Hodgkinson's  half  of  the  business  is  somewhat 
misleading,  for  it  appears  that  he  acquired  only 
half  of  the  latter's  share,  so  that  he  and  Hodgkin- 
son  each  owned  a  fourth  interest  in  the  theatre, 
while  Hallam  held  the  remainder.  As  to  the  price, 
we  are  only  told  that  the  purchaser  was  to  set  the 
value  of  the  property  with  unlimited  time  for 
payment;  but  the  year  before,  Hodgkinson  had 
offered  to  sell  out  for  $i2,5OO.38 


II 

THE  situation  which  confronted  the  new  director 
can  best  be  understood  with  the  aid  of  a  few  facts 
concerning  the  previous  history  of  the  American 
theatre.  There  has  been  considerable  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  the  beginning  of  the  histrionic  art 
in  this  country,  but  Mr.  O.  G.  Sonneck,  who  has 
the  latest  word  on  the  subject,  says  that  Tony 
Aston,  an  English  actor,  performed  at  Charleston 

38  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  138,  148;  see  post,  pp.  44  ff. 


30  HEKIIiam  SDuntap 

in  1703,  and  at  New  York  in  I7O3~4.39  In  1714  a 
play  was  attempted  at  Boston,  but  it  met  the  op 
position  of  Chief  Justice  Sewall.  Williamsburg, 
Virginia,  witnessed  an  unidentified  play  as  early 
as  1718,  and  a  theatre  is  known  to  have  existed 
there  by  I722.40  Whether  this  was  a  structure 
erected  expressly  for  drama  cannot  be  said.  New 
York's  first  company  seems  to  have  been  a  pro 
fessional  body  from  London,  which  held  forth  be 
tween  1732  and  1734,  giving  on  three  nights  a 
week  such  plays  as  "The  Recruiting  Officer,"  "The 
Beaux'  Stratagem,"  and  "Cato."  Their  theatre  was 
an  upper  room  near  the  corner  of  Pearl  Street  and 
Maiden  Lane ;  in  it  a  platform  stage  and  about 
four  hundred  raised  seats  had  been  constructed.41 
In  1735-6  Charleston  was  the  scene  of  activity  of 
an  anonymous  company,  which  gave  "The  Or 
phan,"  "George  Barnwell,"  and  other  plays,  at  a 
charge  of  40  shillings  a  seat.  In  1736  a  new 
theatre,  apparently  put  up  especially  for  dramatic 
purposes,  was  opened  in  Dock  Street.42  Phila 
delphia's  first  theatrical  experiment  seems  to  have 
been  made  by  a  semi-professional  company  which 
gave  "Cato"  in  August,  1749,  and  probably  re 
mained  until  suppressed  by  the  magistrates  as  a 
public  menace.  The  same  company  is  thought  to 

39  "Early  Opera  in  America,"  1915,  p.  7. 

40  C.  P.  Daly,  "First  Theatre  in  America,"  Publications 
of  the  Dunlap  Society,  second  series,  No.  i,  1896,  pp.  16, 

21-3- 

41  T.  A.  Brown,  "History  of  the   New  York  Stage," 
New  York,  1903,  Vol.  I,  p.  I. 

«  Daly,  pp.  49-53. 


rom  1 7  Hfi  to  1 BO5       3 x 

have  gone  to  New  York  in  1750,  and  to  have 
stayed  over  a  year.43  The  Thespians  took  pos 
session  of  a  room  in  a  wooden  building  on  Nassau 
(then  Kip)  Street,  belonging  to  Rip  Van  Dam. 
This  second  New  York  theatre  was  thus  described 
by  T.  A.  Brown : 

"It  was  a  two-storied  house,  with  high  gables. 
The  stage  was  raised  five  feet  from  the  floor.  The 
scenes,  curtains,  and  wings  were  all  carried  by  the 
managers  in  their  'property'  trunks.  A  green  curtain 
was  suspended  from  the  ceiling.  A  pair  of  paper 
screens  were  erected  upon  the  right  and  left  hand 
sides,  for  wings.  Six  wax  lights  were  in  front  of 
the  stage.  The  orchestra  consisted  of  a  German 
flute,  horn,  and  drum  players.  Suspended  from 
the  ceiling  was  the  chandelier,  made  of  a  barrel 
hoop,  through  which  were  driven  half  a  dozen 
nails,  into  which  were  stuck  so  many  candles.  Two 
drop  scenes,  representing  a  castle  and  a  wood, 
bits  of  landscape,  river,  and  mountain,  comprised 
the  scenery."44 

The  room  contained  a  pit  and  gallery,  and  later 
boxes,  and  had  a  capacity  of  about  three  hundred. 
The  admission  was  8  shillings  to  the  boxes,  5 
shillings  to  the  pit,  and  3  shillings  to  the  gallery.45 
(In  New  York  eight  shillings  was  then  the  equiva 
lent  of  one  dollar.) 

43  G.  O.  Seilhamer,  "History  of  the  American  Theatre," 
Vol.  I,  pp.  2-4 ;  Brown,  Vol.  I,  p.  2. 

44  "History  of  the  New  York  Stage,"  Vol.  I,  p.  2. 

45  Daly,  pp.  4-5. 


32  H9iIIiam  SDunlap 

Perhaps  the  most  important  event  in  the  early 
history  of  the  American  theatre  was  the  arrival 
of  the  Hallam  Company  in  1752.  So  significant 
was  this  occurrence  that  Dunlap  began  his 
chronicles  of  the  stage  at  this  point,  ignoring  all 
that  had  preceded  it.  William  Hallam,  manager 
of  a  minor  London  theatre,  became  bankrupt  in 
1750,  and  resolved  to  try  his  fortunes  in  the  New 
World.  He  collected  a  band  of  about  a  dozen 
actors  of  no  distinction,  placed  them  under  the 
direction  of  his  brother  Lewis,  himself  an  actor, 
and  sent  them  across  the  Atlantic.  Their  repertory 
consisted  of  perhaps  twenty-four  dramas,  mostly 
Shakespearian  and  Restoration,  and  eight  or  ten 
farces.  The  troupe  landed  in  Virginia,  probably 
choosing  the  cavalier  South  as  more  favorable  to 
the  profession  than  the  puritan  North.  They  pro 
ceeded  to  Williamsburg,  where  they  inaugurated 
their  career  with  "The  Merchant  of  Venice"  on 
September  5,  1752.  An  old  store-house,  re 
habilitated,  did  duty  as  a  theatre,  and  in  lieu  of  an 
orchestra  a  lone  harpsichord  dispensed  music. 

The  next  fall  Hallam's  players  transferred  their 
activities  to  New  York.  A  new  theatre  was 
erected  in  Nassau  Street  for  their  reception,  the 
first  building  constructed  in  the  city  expressly  for 
dramatic  exhibitions.  The  season  extended  from 
September  to  March ;  the  playing  nights  were  Mon 
day,  Wednesday  and  Friday;  the  performances 
began  at  6  o'clock ;  the  price  of  admission  was  soon 
fixed  at  6,  4,  and  2  shillings.46 

46  Seilhamer,  Vol.  I,  p.  46. 


from  17B6  to  1B05       33 

In  1754  Hallam  attempted  to  invade  Phila 
delphia,  but  the  Quakers  petitioned  the  governor 
to  prohibit  "profane  stage-plays."  Permission  was 
finally  granted  the  company  to  open  a  theatre  on 
the  condition  that  they  offer  "nothing  indecent  and 
immoral,"  that  they  devote  one  night's  receipts  to 
the  poor,  and  that  the  manager  give  security  for 
the  payment  of  all  debts  contracted.  The  last 
stipulation  clearly  indicates  the  suspicion  in  which 
actors  were  held  in  many  localities;  indeed  their 
status  was  often  little  better  than  that  of  vagrants. 
Vigorous  opposition  continued  throughout  the 
whole  season  of  ten  weeks.  Pamphlets  were  dis 
tributed,  and  every  effort  was  made  to  show  the 
evils  attendant  upon  the  theatre,  but  the  company 
prospered  none  the  less. 

Lewis  Hallam  was  succeeded  upon  his  death  by 
David  Douglass,  who  erected  a  new  play-house  on 
Cruger's  Wharf  in  New  York.  He  did  so  without 
the  permission  of  the  authorities,  and  when  he 
tried  to  open  the  doors  in  1758  the  privilege  was 
denied  him.  He  then  advertised  a  "Histrionic 
Academy"  in  which  he  "proposed  to  deliver  dis 
sertations  on  subjects  moral,  instructive,  and  en 
tertaining,  and  to  endeavor  to  qualify  such  as 
would  favour  him  with  attendance  to  speak  in 
public  with  propriety"47  This  ruse  failed  to  blind 
the  eyes  of  the  magistrates,  but  eventually  per 
mission  for  a  brief  season  was  granted. 

Douglass's  actors,  like  all  the  early  companies, 
were  literally  a  band  of  strollers.  They  carried 

47  "American  Theatre/'  pp.  18-19. 


34  IDilliani  Dunlap 

their  simple  equipment  with  them  and  moved 
about  the  country  as  they  saw  fit.  There  were 
no  theatrical  magnates  with  whom  they  might 
make  advance  arrangements.  Uninvited  they 
entered  whatever  town  they  chose,  picked  out  the 
most  likely  substitute  for  a  play-house,  set  up 
their  dingy  canvas  world,  and  dispensed  the  riches 
of  Shakespeare  and  Otway  and  Congreve  until  it 
seemed  expedient  for  them  to  move  on. 

Being  the  chief  purveyors  of  drama  to  the 
colonies,  the  Douglass  troupe  of  barn-stormers  em 
braced  in  its  itinerary  the  extremes  of  Newport 
and  Williamsburg,  and  besides  New  York,  Phila 
delphia,  and  Annapolis,  visited  many  smaller  towns 
where  the  court-house  or  other  building  was  com 
pelled  to  serve  as  a  theatre.  In  general  the 
actors  were  regarded  as  folk  outside  the  pale  of 
normal  moral  restrictions,  from  whom  only  evil 
conduct  was  to  be  expected.  In  reality  their  de 
portment  seems  to  have  been  sufficiently  correct, 
and  it  was  their  custom  to  give  a  benefit  for  the 
poor  to  allay  ill-will.  One  annoyance  from  which 
the  players  suffered  was  the  presence  of  intruders 
behind  the  scenes  and  even  on  the  stage.  Some 
times  the  number  on  the  stage  was  so  large  as  to 
interrupt  the  performance.  In  return  the  actors 
imposed  an  inconvenience  on  the  public  by  going 
from  house  to  house,  soliciting  patronage  for  their 
benefit  nights.  Both  practices  disappeared  before 
Dunlap's  time. 

In  1761  Douglass  erected  a  theatre  in  Beekman 
(then  Chapel)  Street,  New  York.  Five  years 


Biogra  jtyp  from  1 7  fifi  to  1 B05       3  5 

later,  during  the  stamp-act  troubles,  the  populace 
stormed  the  house  and  wrecked  it.48  Whether 
prompted  by  the  monarchical  sympathy  of  the 
players  or  by  some  other  cause,  this  wanton  de 
struction  of  their  property  indicates  that  the  legal 
status  of  the  profession  was  very  low.  But,  noth 
ing  daunted,  the  next  year  Douglass  built  a  new 
house  in  John  Street.  Dunlap,  who  began  his 
career  in  this  structure,  described  it  thus: 

"It  was  principally  of  wood ;  an  unsightly  ob 
ject,  painted  red.  ...  It  was  about  60  feet  back 
from  the  street,  having  a  covered  way  of  rough 
wooden  material  from  the  pavement  to  the  doors. 
.  .  .  Two  rows  of  boxes,  with  a  pit  and  gallery, 
could  accommodate  all  the  play-going  people  of 
that  time,  and  yield  to  the  sharers  eight  hundred 
dollars  when  full,  at  the  usual  prices.  The  stage 
was  of  good  dimensions."49 

The  dressing-rooms  and  greenroom  were  in  an 
adjacent  shed.50  I  infer  that  the  capacity  of  the 
house  was  about  one  thousand.  It  was  opened  in 
December  of  1767  with  the  popular  "Beaux' 
Stratagem."  On  this  occasion  John  Henry,  who 
had  failed  of  success  in  London,  made  his  first 
New  York  appearance.  He  was  handsome  and 
capable,  and  eventually  attained  an  important  sta 
tion  in  the  theatrical  affairs  of  this  country.  The 
leading  player  in  the  American  Company,  as  it 

48  Seilhamer,  Vol.  I,  pp.  141-2. 

49  "American  Theatre,"  p.  28. 

50  Seilhamer,  Vol.  I,  p.  212. 


36  JDtfliam  SDunlap 

was  now  called,  was  Lewis  Hallam  the  second, 
who  at  the  age  of  twelve  had  come  in  the  original 
expedition  with  his  father  and  mother,  and  had 
been  almost  reared  on  the  stage. 

When  it  became  evident  that  a  break  with  the 
mother  country  was  unavoidable,  Congress,  de 
siring  to  direct  all  resources  toward  the  national 
welfare,  recommended  that  gaming,  cock-fighting, 
and  play-acting  be  discouraged,— such  company 
the  theatre  kept  in  colonial  eyes.  Accordingly 
Douglass  shipped  his  troupe  to  the  West  Indies 
to  await  more  peaceable  times. 

During  the  Revolution,  the  English  soldiers 
were  our  only  actors.  Among  other  horrors  of 
war,  puritan  Boston  was  compelled  to  abide  the 
presence  of  a  makeshift  play-house  with  Burgoyne 
at  its  head.  Philadelphia  maintained  a  body  of 
soldier-actors  with  John  Andre  as  scene-painter. 
The  John  Street  Theatre  in  New  York  was  kept 
open  almost  throughout  the  struggle  by  British 
amateurs,  to  the  delight  of  the  youthful  Dunlap.51 

When  the  American  Company  returned,  it  was 
opposed  on  moral  and  patriotic  grounds.  In  1785, 
however,  under  the  new  managers  Hallam  and 
Henry,  an  opening  was  finally  effected  in  New 
York,  but  during  the  season  attacks  by  pulpit  and 
press  were  unremitting.  Indeed  the  clergy  so 
inflamed  the  people  that  there  were  threats  of 
demolishing  the  theatre.  But  the  opponents  con 
tented  themselves  with  the  milder  protest  of  a 
memorial  signed  by  seven  hundred  persons,  asking 

si  Seilhamer,  Vol.  II,  Chapters  II-III. 


25iograpf)p  from  1  THE  to  1 Bfl5       3  7 

the  legislature  to  abolish  theatres.  This  was  met 
by  a  counter  memorial  with  fourteen  hundred 
signatures.  In  the  City  of  Brotherly  Love, 
whither  the  company  repaired  in  1788,  the  atmo 
sphere  was  so  uncongenial  that  the  performances 
were  advertised  "gratis,"  and  the  plays  were  dis 
guised  by  moral  captions:  thus,  "She  Stoops  to 
Conquer"  became  "Improper  Education";  "Ham 
let,"  "Filial  Piety";  "Richard  III,"  "The  Fate  of 
Tyranny."  And  even  then  the  house  seems  to 
have  been  closed  by  the  authorities.  But  the  next 
year  the  drama  won  a  significant  victory  in  the 
repeal  of  the  prohibitory  law.52 

A  few  years  later  a  similar  victory  was  won  in 
Boston.  There  acting  had  been  forbidden  by  law 
since  1750,  when  some  audacious  individuals  tried 
to  perform  "The  Orphan."  In  1792  a  still  more 
audacious  group  defied  the  magistrates  and  erected 
a  temporary  play-house.  It  was  innocently  called 
the  "New  Exhibition  Room,"  and  programs  con 
sisting  of  songs,  acrobatic  feats,  and  dances  were 
given.  Emboldened  by  the  apparent  indifference 
of  the  officials,  these  daring  spirits  next  attempted 
dramas,  advertised  as  moral  lectures.  After 
several  weeks  of  impunity,  the  county  sheriff  "un 
expectedly  made  his  first  appearance  on  that 
stage,"  and  arrested  the  offenders.  But  in  the  en 
suing  year  the  restrictive  ordinance  was  revoked, 
a  substantial  building  was  constructed,  and  the 
Boston  stage  became  a  permanent  institution.53 

52  Seilhamer,  Vol.  II,  pp.  190,  244-59. 

53  \v  w.  Clapp,  "A  Record  of  the  Boston  Stage,"  Bos 
ton,  1853,  pp.  1-18. 


38  IBilliam  SDunlap 

From  1792  theatrical  conditions  in  the  leading 
cities  improved  rapidly.  In  that  year  Thomas 
Wignell,  a  prominent  comedian,  withdrew  from 
New  York  and  organized  a  company  in  Phila 
delphia,  which,  recruited  from  England,  sur 
passed  its  northern  rival.  He  entered  into 
partnership  with  A.  Reinagle  and  undertook 
the  construction  of  a  play-house  much  larger  and 
finer  than  any  other  in  America.  Hallam  and 
Henry  also  reinforced  their  company  with  several 
new  actors  from  England,  chief  among  whom 
were  John  Hodgkinson  and  his  wife. 

Hodgkinson,  who  was  destined  to  play  so  im 
portant  a  part  in  Dunlap's  affairs,  had  risen  as 
high  as  the  Bath  Theatre  before  crossing  the 
Atlantic.  He  was  an  actor  of  great  energy  and 
versatility,  equally  capable  in  comic,  tragic,  and 
singing  roles.  He  became  the  favorite  of  the 
public,  and  the  bane  of  the  other  first-line  play 
ers,  who  were  compelled  to  relinquish  their  prin 
cipal  parts  to  the  newcomer.  Mrs.  Hodgkinson 
was  almost  as  valuable  an  addition  as  her  husband. 
Personally  attractive  and  possessing  a  good  voice, 
she  made  opera  her  forte,  though  she  was  far 
above  mediocrity  in  comedy  and  tragedy.  Hodg 
kinson  soon  proved  a  Tartar  to  the  John  Street 
partners.  Relations  were  already  strained  be 
tween  them,  and  the  new  man's  high-handed 
methods  caused  a  complete  rupture.  Henry,  who 
saw  himself  and  his  wife,  with  the  treacherous 
Hallam's  concurrence,  being  driven  from  their 


1?BH  to  1BH5       39 

position,  sold  his  share  of  the  stock  to  Hodgkinson 
in  1794  and  left  the  stage. 

Hallam  and  Hodgkinson  were  now  masters  of 
the  north,  while  Wignell  and  Reinagle  controlled 
the  situation  farther  south.  The  American  Com 
pany  was  stronger  than  it  had  ever  been,  and  the 
Philadelphia  actors  were  the  best  group  the 
country  had  yet  possessed.  Both  companies  seem 
to  have  been  prospering  and  enjoying  much  public 
good-will.  The  theatre  had  overcome  the  most 
violent  faction  of  its  enemies:  Boston  had  been 
successfully  invaded,  Philadelphia  had  repealed 
its  prohibition,  and  New  York  was  to  see  no  more 
organized  opposition.  At  this  propitious  period 
Dunlap's  connection  with  the  business  began.54 

A  few  general  statements  concerning  the  the 
atrical  customs  and  methods  which  obtained  at 
this  time,  especially  at  New  York,  and  we  shall 
take  up  the  narrative  of  the  new  manager's  ex 
periences.  The  company  was  a  permanent  group 
much  like  a  modern  opera  company.  It  was  at 
tached  to  some  theatre,  which  it  considered  its 
home,  and  where  it  gave  performances  the  greater 
part  of  the  year.  At  other  times  it  visited  else 
where  as  a  whole  or  in  sections.  The  manager  (or 
managers  in  case  of  partnership),  who  was  usu 
ally  an  actor,  was  not  the  hired  servant  of  a  body 
of  owners  or  promoters,  but  was  the  ultimate  di 
rector  and  dictator  of  affairs.  He  owned  or  rented 

54  I  have  mentioned  only  those  companies  and  cities 
which  were  especially  important  in  the  development  of 
our  theatre. 


40  ITilUani  Duniap 

the  house  and  its  equipment,  chose  and  cast  the 
plays,  hired  the  actors,  arranged  the  salaries,  and 
in  general  was  monarch  of  the  mimic  world. 

The  great  majority  of  the  players  came  from 
England,  where  they  had  served  in  the  minor 
theatres.  None,  of  course,  had  left  positions  of 
distinction  in  the  mother  country  to  try  their  un 
certain  fate  in  the  New  World,  but  frequently  they 
developed  into  competent  performers.  Many  of 
them  were  young  players  who  had  come  at  the 
invitation  of  the  managers,  some  were  soldiers  of 
fortune,  and  a  few  were  veterans  who  had  out 
lived  their  reputations  at  home.  Until  1791  it  was 
the  practice  of  the  American  Company  to  pay  its 
actors  with  shares  of  the  profits,  but  in  that  year 
the  salary  plan  was  substituted;  the  salaries  now 
ranged  between  about  $10  and  $25  weekly.  A 
time-honored  method  of  eking  out  the  income  was 
the  benefit.  A  portion  of  each  season  was  set 
aside  for  this  purpose ;  each  member  of  the  troupe 
was  assigned  a  night  for  which  he  arranged  the 
program,  and  from  which  he  received  the  profits. 
Once  an  actor  had  shown  his  ability  to  handle  a 
part,  it  became  in  a  manner  his  property,  and  it 
was  no  uncommon  thing  to  see  an  elderly  man 
playing  the  youthful  role  he  had  been  given  years 
before.  Because  of  this  permanence  of  casts  there 
was  much  rivalry  for  the  leading  parts,  and  much 
ill-will  resulted,  especially  between  the  older  play 
ers  and  the  new  recruits  fresh  from  England,  who 
looked  with  lordly  contempt  on  these  Thespians  of 
the  wilderness.  The  actresses  were  frequently  the 


23iograj>ljp  from  1 THH  to  1 Bfl5       4 1 

wives  of  the  actors,  and  were  content  to  be  known 
by  their  husbands'  names.  The  marital  confusion 
which  characterizes  the  profession  to-day  was  then 
less  commonly  found.  Some  of  the  players  were 
fond  of  making  themselves  conspicuous  on  the 
street  by  their  dress.  West  appeared  in  leather 
breeches  and  a  scarlet  coat  with  a  high  collar, 
Robbins  wore  gold  lace  on  his  collar  and  three 
gold  hat-bands,  while  Hodgkinson  still  powdered, 
curled,  and  braided  his  hair,  and  adhered  to 
breeches  and  stockings  instead  of  pantaloons  and 
boots.  "This  costume,  with  his  hat  on  one  side, 
and  an  air  and  manner  then  known  by  the  appella 
tion  of  theatrical,  marked  him  among  thousands."55 

An  important  member  of  the  staff  was  the  scene- 
painter.  Before  this  period  scenery  had  been 
largely  neglected,  a  few  cheap  canvases,  blackened 
with  age,  being  used  for  all  occasions.  But  in  the 
nineties  of  the  eighteenth  century  this  branch  of 
the  art  underwent  improvement.  New  scenes  were 
painted  for  the  more  prominent  plays,  and  a  vivid 
description  of  special  scenery  came  to  be  one  of 
the  modes  of  advertising.  Another  indispensable 
personage  was  the  attendant,  who  at  intervals  dur 
ing  the  performance  appeared  on  the  stage  to 
move  the  furniture  or  to  snuff  the  candles. 

The  repertories  consisted  of  plays  ranging  from 
Shakespeare  to  the  latest  contemporary.  English 
dramas  were  in  an  overwhelming  majority;  the 
recent  London  successes  were  imported  as  soon  as 
possible.  American  plays  were  accepted,  but  the 

55  "American  Theatre,"  p.  102. 


42  UEMIUam  SDunlap 

most  popular  of  them  could  not  vie  with  the 
English  pieces.  Following  British  custom,  the 
program  was  composed  of  a  comedy  or  tragedy, 
with  a  farce  or  comic  opera  as  afterpiece.  Per 
haps  a  pantomime  or  song  and  dance  would  serve 
as  interlude  between  the  two,  or  an  elaborate 
pantomime  might  take  the  place  of  the  farce.  Not 
infrequently  the  bill  would  close  with  an  acrobatic 
feat,  such  as  a  rope-walking  act  or  a  leap  through 
a  barrel  of  fire. 

The  audiences  were  distributed  in  an  interest 
ing  manner.  The  boxes,  to  which  the  admission 
was  $i,  were  much  more  numerous  than  now, 
and  were  the  resort  of  the  ladies  and  the  gentle 
men  who  accompanied  them.  It  was  the  practice 
of  the  box-holders  to  send  servants  several  hours 
in  advance  to  protect  the  seats  from  invasion. 
Certain  boxes  were  reserved  for  the  prostitutes, 
who  did  not  neglect  this  opportunity  to  advertise 
themselves, — an  evil  which  Dunlap  greatly  de 
plored.  The  pit  was  occupied  almost  entirely  by 
unattached  gentlemen,  who  paid  75  cents  for  the 
privilege  of  sitting  on  a  bench.  Above  them  hung 
the  chandelier  of  candles,  and  woe  betide  the  ap 
parel  of  the  man  who  sat  directly  under  it !  The 
gallery  was  reserved  for  the  rabble  at  50  cents  a 
head.  They  were  the  most  vociferous  part  of  the 
house,  and  did  not  scruple  to  express  their  dis 
approval  by  either  words  or  missiles.  At  times 
actors,  orchestra,  and  audience  alike  suffered  from 
their  attentions. 

But    with    all    its    crudity,    our    early    theatre 


2£>iograjrf)p  from  ITHfi  to  1B05      43 

achieved  honorable  results.  The  permanent 
classics  of  English  dramatic  literature  held  a  much 
larger  place  than  they  do  to-day.  Shakespeare, 
Otway,  Farquhar,  Rowe,  and  Lillo  found  an 
abode  in  the  play-houses  of  America,  and  actors 
capable  of  interpreting  them.  The  companies 
must  have  been  prodigiously  industrious ;  during 
a  year's  run  they  would  sometimes  give  as  many 
as  seventy  different  plays  and  about  the  same 
number  of  farces.  And  at  their  best  these  per 
formances  were  finished,  dignified,  and  artistic. 


Ill 

WHILE  the  negotiations  were  in  progress  by 
which  Dunlap  became  a  theatrical  manager,  the 
realization  was  forced  on  him  that  his  two  pro 
spective  associates  were  bitter  enemies.  Hodgkin- 
son  had  compelled  Mrs.  Hallam  to  withdraw  from 
the  stage  temporarily,  because  of  her  persistent  in 
toxication,  in  which  state  she  often  insulted  him 
and  disgraced  herself  before  the  audience.  Hallam 
protested  that  his  wife  had  been  misrepresented, 
and  that  his  partner  had  stolen  all  the  principal 
parts  for  himself  and  his  favorites;  while  Hodg- 
kinson  swore  that  he  would  refuse  to  play  unless 
he  could  have  the  parts  he  desired.  This  strife, 
the  result  of  professional  jealousy,  it  became  the 
new  director's  first  duty  to  allay.  He  found  the 
task  so  exasperating  that  he  offered  to  sell  out 
and  retire.  But  in  June  a  two-year  agreement  was 


44  IDilliani  Dunlap 

drawn  up  and  signed,  which  reduced  the  machinery 
to  some  sort  of  running  order.  This  contract 
throws  so  much  light  on  Dunlap's  position  in  the 
new  concern  that  it  is  worth  quoting  in  full. 


ARTICLES  of   AGREEMENT 

Betiveen 
LEWIS  HALLAM,  JOHN  HODGKINSON, 

and 
WILLIAM  DUNLAP. 

WE,  the  SUBSCRIBERS,  do  hereby  Covenant  and 
Agree,  to  exert  ourselves  in  the  several  Ways 
hereafter  mentioned,  for  the  mutual  Benefit  and 
Profit  of  each  other,  and  of  that  Property  known 
under  the  Denomination  of  Property  of  the  Old 
American  Company;  of  which  the  One  Half  be 
longs  to  Lewis  Hallam,  One  Fourth  to  John 
Hodgkinson,  and  One  Fourth  to  William 
Dunlap. 

THAT  William  Dunlap  shall,  as  Acting  Manager 
of  the  Company,  determine,  weekly,  the  Busi 
ness  of  the  coming  Week;  that  is,  what  Plays 
shall  be  performed;  subject  to  no  other  Con- 
troul  than  the  joint  Disapprobation  of  the  other 
Proprietors.  That  he  shall  get  up  what  new 
Pieces  he  shall  think  best,  and  in  the  Manner 
he  shall  deem  proper,  subject  only  to  the  same 
Controul;  and  cast  them  in  Conformity  to  his 
Judgment,  and  the  Articles  of  the  several  Per 
formers. 


2&iograpf)p  ftom  17fifi  to  1B05      45 

THAT  Lewis  Hallam  shall  exert  himself  as  a  Per 
former  in  all  those  Characters  which  he  has  per 
formed,  on  Stock  Nights,  since  the  Commence 
ment  of  the  Firm  of  Hallam  and  Hodgkinson, 
if  called  upon  so  to  do  by  the  Acting  Manager, 
either  by  Notification  that  the  Plays  containing 
such  Characters  will  be  performed,  or  other 
wise:  That  these  Characters  are  considered  as 
his  Property ;  but  he  shall  not  resign  any  one  or 
more  of  them,  without  the  Concurrence  of  the 
Acting  Manager ;  and  then  only  into  his  Hands, 
to  be  at  his  sole  Disposal. 

THAT  John  Hodgkinson,  etc.,  as  in  preceding 
paragraph. 

THAT,  in  all  Engagements  made  with  any  Per 
formers,  the  Acting  Manager,  and  one  of  the 
other  Proprietors,  shall  have  Power  to  bind  the 
three ;  and  no  Contract  or  Engagement  shall  be 
made  with  any  Person  whatever,  without  such 
Concurrence  of  the  Acting  Manager,  and  one  of 
the  other  Proprietors. 

THAT  no  other  Division  of  the  Profits  of  the  Co 
partnership  shall  take  Place,  under  any  Appella 
tion  whatever,  than  such  Division,  or  in  such 
Proportion  as  now  exists;  and  no  Alteration 
whatever  shall  take  Place,  without  the  Concur 
rence  of  all  the  Proprietors. 

THAT,  to  prevent  Discord  and  Confusion  behind 
the  Scenes,  no  Person  shall  be  admitted,  except 
the  Performers,  under  any  Pretence  whatever, 
without  a  written  Permission  from  the  Acting 


46 

Manager;  Servants,  &c.,  having  Tickets  for  the 
Season. 

THAT,  in  all  Regulations  for  the  Welfare  of  the 
Theatre,  made  by  the  Acting  Manager,  with  the 
Concurrence  of  the  other  Proprietors,  or  such 
one  of  them  as  shall  be  present,  they  shall  con 
sider  themselves  on  an  Equality  with  the  other 
Performers,  except  as  more  bound  to  a  scrupu 
lous  Observance  of  them  by  the  superior  In 
fluence  of  their  Example. 

THAT  the  following  Plays,  The  Revenge,  Dis- 
tress'd  Mother,  Suspicious  Husband,  Hamlet, 
Much  Ado  about  Nothing,  and  such  other  of 
the  old  Drama  as  have  not  been  performed  dur 
ing  the  Firm  of  Hallam  and  Hodgkinson,  shall 
be  liable  to  the  Cast  of  the  Acting  Manager; 
Mr.  Hallam  or  Mr.  Hodgkinson  having  no  other 
Controul  over  such  Cast  than  the  Refusal  to 
play  in  the  Piece,  if  the  Character  allotted  to 
either  of  them  is  such  as  he  shall  object  to. 

THAT,  in  Addition  to  the  Business  of  Acting 
Manager,  William  Dunlap  shall  act  as  Treasurer 
and  Bookkeeper  to  the  Company. 

THAT  John  Hodgkinson  shall  assist  the  Acting 
Manager  by  his  Advice  and  Personal  Aid;  and 
in  Case  of  William  Dunlap 's  Sickness,  or  Ab 
sence  from  other  unavoidable  Causes,  or  for 
Purposes  agreed  upon  among  the  Proprietors, 
or  a  Majority  of  them,  John  Hodgkinson  shall 
be  considered  as  Acting  Manager,  and  execute 
the  Duties  of  the  Office  in  the  Place  of  William 


2&iograpl)p  from  ITfifi  to  1B05       47 

Dunlap;  receiving  from  said  Dunlap  (in  Case 
such  Absence  shall  be  for  one  or  more  Weeks) 
that  Salary  which  he  receives  as  Acting 
Manager. 

THAT,  in  Case  of  any  Default  on  the  Part  of  either 
or  any  of  the  Subscribers,  within  the  Term  of 
two  Years,  from  the  first  Day  of  May,  1796, 
they  do  severally  bind  themselves  in  the  Penalty 
of  Four  Thousand  Pounds,  lawful  Money  of  the 
State  of  New- York,  to  be  forfeited  by  such 
Breach  of  this  Agreement. 

THAT,  in  Case  any  of  the  Subscribers  should  deter 
mine  on  selling  the  Whole,  or  any  Part,  of  their 
Division  of  the  above-mentioned  Property,  within 
the  above-named  Time,  the  Party  so  wishing 
to  sell,  shall  give  the  Offer,  or  Refusal,  to  the 
other  Party  or  Parties,  at  a  Price  to  be  agreed 
on  by  them,  or  to  be  determined  by  three  in 
different  Persons,  chosen  by  the  respective 
Parties. 

LEWIS  HALLAM.  (L.  s.) 
Hugh  Gaine  JOHN  HODGKINSON.  (L.  s.) 
John  Gamage  WILLIAM  DUNLAP.  (L.  s.)  56 

Early  in  July,  upon  the  closing  of  the  theatrical 
year  in  New  York,  Dunlap  escorted  the  company 
to  Hartford,  where  it  shortly  became  apparent 
that  the  receipts  could  not  meet  the  costs.  After 
advancing  $400  or  $500  from  his  own  pocket,  he 

56  John  Hodgkinson,  "A  Narrative  of  his  Connection 
with  the  Old  American  Company,  From  the  Fifth  of  Sep 
tember,  1792,  To  the  Thirty-First  of  March,  1797,"  New 
York,  1797,  pp.  20  ff. 


48  JMliam  SDunlap 

withdrew  to  Perth  Amboy  to  spend  the  summer 
with  his  family  and  Brown. 

Late  in  September,  1796,  John  Street  opened 
for  the  fall  season.  The  company,  with  which  the 
new  manager  was  connected,  included  a  few  actors 
worthy  of  mention  besides  the  Hallams  and  Hodg- 
kinsons.  Chief  among  these  was  Joseph  Jefferson, 
who  had  come  from  England  a  year  or  two  be 
fore.57  Though  still  under  twenty-five,  he  was 
already  an  artist  in  comedy  and  soon  attained  the 
first  rank  among  American  comedians.  Dunlap 
described  him  as  a  handsome  youth  with  a  per 
fectly  Grecian  nose,  blue  eyes  full  of  laughter,  and 
a  mobile  face  capable  of  exciting  mirth  by  the 
power  of  feature  alone.  Another  performer  of 
note  was  Mrs.  Melmoth.  She  had  gone  through 
a  respectable  career  at  Covent  Garden  and  Drury 
Lane,  but  when  her  figure  grew  too  matronly  and 
her  reputation  too  time-worn,  she  came  to  America 
in  1793,  and  engaged  for  New  York,  where  she 
became  a  favorite  in  tragedy.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  John 
Johnson  were  also  actors  of  considerable  ex 
perience  in  England,  Johnson  having  played  for 
five  years  at  the  Haymarket.  They  became  valu 
able  acquisitions  of  the  New  York  company  early 
in  1796.  Mrs.  Johnson,  who  was  tall,  beautiful, 
and  elegant  of  manner,  played  the  fine  ladies  of 
comedy  more  perfectly  than  any  one  had  yet 
done  in  this  country.  It  was  a  highly  specialized 
company ;  each  performer  had  his  particular  forte, 

57  Joseph  Jefferson  of  Rip  Van  Winkle  fame  was  his 
grandson. 


1  TfiB  to  1 B05      49 

and  the  parts  were  distributed  accordingly.  Thus 
one  actor  made  a  specialty  of  comic  old  men,  an 
other  of  serious  fathers,  a  third  of  romantic 
heroes;  one  actress  was  excellent  in  old  women, 
another  in  young  girls,  etc.  It  was,  as  a  whole,  a 
company  of  no  little  versatility  and  merit. 

On  the  last  day  of  October  a  new  drama  from 
Dunlap's  pen,  "The  Mysterious  Monk,"  was  per 
formed  with  Hodgkinson  in  the  leading  part.  Its 
reception  was  not  enthusiastic.58  Quiet  now 
seems  to  have  prevailed  in  the  greenroom,  but 
the  theatre  was  not  to  be  the  abode  of  tranquillity. 
One  night  in  November  two  sea  captains  became 
drunk  (it  was  then  permissible  to  bring  liquor  into 
the  house),  and  began  calling  for  "Yankee 
Doodle"  during  the  overture.  Not  receiving  the 
desired  solace  for  their  patriotic  ears,  they  hurled 
missiles  at  the  orchestra  and  defied  the  indignant 
audience.  A  riot  ensued,  which  resulted  in  the 
ejection  of  the  offenders ;  but  returning  later  with 
a  number  of  sailors,  they  assailed  the  doors  of  the 
play-house  until  the  city  watch  took  them  into 
custody.  This  fracas  resulted  in  the  prohibition  of 
intoxicants  until  the  end  of  the  first  piece.59 

Perhaps  it  was  about  this  time  that  Dunlap  came 
to  grief  through  a  practical  joke.  Dr.  Pierre 
Michaux,  a  French  refugee  in  New  York,  had 
published  a  tract  on  surgery.  Dr.  Wright  Post, 
a  surgeon  of  the  city,  induced  his  friend  Dunlap 

58  It  was   repeated   in   November,    1796,   and   again   in 
January,  1803. 

59  Seilhamer,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  381. 


50  itettliam  2Dimlap 

to  write  a  caricature  of  the  work  and  the  author. 
At  John  Street  a  ludicrous  afterpiece  was  gotten 
up,  called  "Fractura  Minimi  Digiti,"  in  which 
Michaux  was  excellently  taken  off.  The  next 
Sunday,  as  the  dramatist  was  leaving  the  Brick 
Church,  the  irate  Frenchman  set  upon  him,  and 
gave  him  such  a  drubbing  as  to  suspend  his  church 
attendance  for  some  weeks.60 

On  the  Qth  of  January,  1797,  Dunlap  initiated  a 
new  phase  of  his  work  by  presenting  a  partial 
translation  from  the  French,  "Tell  Truth  and 
Shame  the  Devil."  This  two-act  sketch  was  re 
peated  once  or  twice,  and  two  years  later  it  had  the 
honor  of  appearing,  somewhat  reduced,  at  Covent 
Garden.  An  English  critic  pronounced  it  a 
"trifling  performance,  which  might  have  been  con 
fined  to  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic  without  any 
loss."61 

The  Hallam-Hodgkinson  feud  continuing  to  the 
distress  of  the  new  partner,  he  relinquished  his 
salary  and  retreated  for  a  time.  During  his 
temporary  absence  from  the  field  of  conflict,  an 
extraordinary  episode  occurred.  The  Hallams, 
having  resolved  to  reinstate  Mrs.  Hallam,  had 
secretly  scattered  their  supporters  through  the 
house,  and  when  Hodgkinson  came  on  he  was 
stupefied  by  a  chorus  of  hisses.  Mrs.  Hallam 
then  entered,  dressed  in  black  and  looking  "beauty 

«°  J.  W.  Francis,  "Old  New  York,"  New  York,  1866,  pp. 
66-7. 

61  "European  Magazine  and  London  Review,"  Vol. 
XXXV,  p.  330. 


rom  1  Tfifi  to  1 805       5 1 

in  distress."  Loud  plaudits  greeted  her,  while 
clubs  were  brandished  at  the  speechless  Hodgkin- 
son.  At  this  point  Hallam,  also  dressed  in  black, 
stalked  in,  and  requested  that  his  wife  be  given  a 
hearing.  Whereupon  she  read  a  statement  of  her 
grievances  and  retired.  Both  men  now  tried  to 
address  the  audience,  but  Hodgkinson  succeeded 
in  gaining  its  ear.  After  silencing  Hallam  and 
quelling  the  rioters,  he  continued  the  play  amid 
constant  applause.  But  the  next  night  he  was 
hissed  off  the  stage,  and  in  his  wrath  he  refused 
to  have  anything  more  to  do  with  the  theatre. 
Suit  was  begun  against  Hallam  for  disturbing 
the  peace,  and  that  clever  actor,  to  gain  sympathy, 
insisted  on  going  to  jail  in  spite  of  the  sheriff's 
efforts  to  prevent  him.  He  soon  wearied  of  this 
and  liberated  himself,  but  his  point  had  been  won 
and  Mrs.  Hallam  was  free  to  return  to  the  stage. 
Hodgkinson  having  thrown  up  the  command, 
Dunlap  was  compelled  to  resume  his  position. 

Early  in  May  he  obtained  a  brief  respite  from 
his  trials  by  going  to  Philadelphia  as  a  deputy  to 
the  Abolition  Convention.  Smith  and  Mitchill 
accompanied  him,  and  a  happy  reunion  with  Brown 
took  place.  As  chairman  of  a  committee,  the 
dramatist  drew  up  a  memorial,  which  produced 
from  Congress  an  act  against  the  slave-trade. 
Sometime  later  a  slave-ship  was  condemned 
through  testimony  of  his  procuring.  Dunlap's 
attitude  toward  slavery  was  broad-minded  and 
sane.  While  deprecating  the  evil,  he  realized  that 
out-and-out  abolition  might  do  more  harm  than 


52  IDtUtam  Dunlap 

good  by  working  injustice  both  to  the  slaveholder, 
who  sometimes  was  innocently  such,  and  to  the 
slave,  who  might  be  more  miserable  free  than 
bound.  Colonization  appealed  to  him  as  the  most 
satisfactory  solution.62 

On  June  7,  1797,  perhaps  as  a  sort  of  peace 
offering  to  Hodgkinson,  Dunlap  staged  "The  Man 
of  Fortitude,"  a  joint  product  of  the  two  men.  It 
was,  however,  a  case  of  involuntary  collaboration, 
since  Hodgkinson  had  appropriated  the  other's 
manuscript  and  rewritten  it  to  suit  himself.63 

On  the  i6th  of  June  the  new  manager's  first 
season  closed.  His  previous  life  of  peaceful 
leisure  had  given  place  to  one  of  much  activity, 
responsibility,  and  turbulence.  He  had  suddenly 
been  plunged  into  a  world  of  discord  and  petty 
strife  which  tried  his  spirit  sorely.  The  com 
pensation  seems  already  to  have  been  inadequate 
to  his  investment  of  time  and  money,  for  during 
the  summer  we  find  him  trying  to  borrow  a  few 
hundred  dollars  to  reopen  in  the  fall.64  Dunlap's 
influence  on  the  productions  of  this  year  has  been 
described  by  Seilhamer,  his  constant  and  unreason 
ing  detractor,  as  "grotesque."65  Such  attacks  are 
scarcely  worthy  of  notice,  yet  it  should  be  pointed 
out  that  far  from  suffering,  our  stage  benefited 
from  this  year  of  his  directing.  The  old  pieces 
were  much  the  same  as  those  of  the  previous 

62  "American  Theatre,"  p.  170. 

63  It  was  repeated  in  1798,  and  given  twice  in  1806.    It 
was  acted  at  Albany  in  1824-5. 

64  Dunlap's  Diary,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  49. 

65  Seilhamer,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  387. 


25io0ra  pljp  from  1 Z  fifi  to  1  Bfl5       5  3 

season,  which  Seilhamer  characterized  as  the  most 
brilliant  ever  known  at  John  Street;  and  among 
the  new  ones  were  five  American  plays,  represent 
ing  four  different  writers,  as  against  one  the 
previous  year.  Such  encouragement  of  native 
drama  hardly  deserves  condemnation. 

Before  the  closing  of  the  theatre,  important 
changes  had  been  decided  on  for  the  fall.  A  group 
of  business  men  were  constructing  a  new  play 
house  in  Park  Row.  Dunlap  and  Hodgkinson 
were  invited  to  become  joint  lessees  of  the  build 
ing,  and  in  May  they  agreed  to  occupy  it  for  the 
four  ensuing  seasons.  The  two  managers  ar 
ranged  between  themselves  that  Hodgkinson 
should  receive  $55  a  week  as  actor  and  stage  super 
intendent,  and  Dunlap  $24  as  treasurer  and  joint 
director.  They  agreed  with  Hallam  to  purchase 
his  theatrical  property,  to  give  him  one  fourth  of 
the  profits,  and  to  retain  him  and  his  wife  as  actors. 

The  first  two  accessible  volumes  of  Dunlap's 
manuscript  Diary  extend  from  July  27,  1797,  to 
June  i,  1798.  If  my  account  of  this  period  is 
disproportionately  full,  it  is  because  I  have  the 
material  to  give  a  more  intimate  picture  of  the 
man  than  heretofore.  The  last  of  July  found  him 
and  his  family  spending  the  summer  with  his 
mother  at  Perth  Amboy.  In  these  pages  occur 
numerous  references  to  his  children,  John  and 
Margaret.  To  their  education  he  devoted  much 
care,  and  was  rewarded  by  a  certain  precocity  in 
John,  who  read  "Alexander's  Feast"  to  his  father, 
perused  Shakespeare's  historical  plays  eagerly,  and 


54  09illiam  SDuntojt 

for  pastime  sailed  round  the  world  on  a  map, 
visiting  the  places  Cook  had  introduced  him  to. 
But  the  boy  sometimes  found  less  intellectual 
amusements,  as  this  pleasant  glimpse  shows: 

"Aug.  7.  After  breakfast  I  walked  off  for 
Woodbridge,  the  two  Children  by  agreement  go 
with  me  as  far  as  the  Barracks  to  carry  my  little 
bundle;  I  took  them  nearly  to  the  parting  roads, 
kiss'd  them  and  sent  them  back  hand  in  hand,  after 
walking  some  way  I  looked  back  thro'  my  glass 
and  saw  that  Margaret  had  submitted  that  John 
should  drive  her  as  his  horse  with  a  rush  whip  & 
they  both  were  galloping  into  town."66 

Dunlap's  employments  were  gardening,  nature 
study,  and  reading,  often  with  his  wife.  He 
seems  to  have  read  everything  available,  includ 
ing  the  encyclopedia,  through  which  he  waded 
alphabetically,  passing  from  Platonism  to  potatoes 
without  a  qualm.  A  specimen  day  from  the  Diary 
will  throw  much  light  on  his  habits : 

"July  28.  Before  day  we  had  a  violent  gust 
of  wind  rain  &  lightning.  I  was  up  before  5  & 
worked  in  the  garden  some  hours.  Read  Hume 
with  John  &  teach  Margaret.  Write  to  Hoi- 
croft.  I  had  an  opportunity  of  observing  that  the 
young  blue  bird  is  considerably  like  the  young 
Robin.  I  saw  yesterday,  in  a  boy's  hands,  a  young 
flying  squirrel,  I  took  him  &  examined  his 
peculiarty.  Afternoon  walk  a  little  way  with  my 

««  Diary,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  24-5. 


25io0rapl)p  from  1 7  Hfi  to  1  B05       55 

gun:  shot  a  rabbit.  The  male  Bobolink  has  dis- 
appear'd.  Return  to  tea  at  Mrs  Terrills.  Read 
Condorcet.  We  have  a  fine  rain."67 

Even  to  this  quiet  retreat  Dunlap's  troubles  pur 
sued  him.  At  the  close  of  the  last  theatrical  season 
Hodgkinson  assumed  his  duties  as  part  manager 
of  the  new  concern  by  taking  the  company  north 
for  the  summer.  After  a  few  nights  of  loss  at 
Hartford,  he  moved  on  to  Boston.  The  Hartford 
proprietors  being  dissatisfied,  he  engaged  another 
company  under  the  direction  of  one  Solee,  to  finish 
out  the  season  there.  At  Boston  Hodgkinson  lost 
money  regularly.  Thus  Dunlap  was  called  upon  to 
support  two  companies  that  could  not  meet  ex 
penses.  He  was  opposed  to  the  summer  touring 
plan;  he  felt  that  the  better  measure  was  to  do 
little  or  nothing  in  the  summer  and  to  open  early 
in  the  fall,  but  his  partner's  ideas  were  of  a  more 
expansive  sort  and  won  his  reluctant  acquiescence. 
On  August  16  he  wrote  to  Boston,  strongly  reaf 
firming  his  disapproval  and  advising  concentration 
on  New  York.  He  concluded  with  this  kindly 
sentence:  "I  feel  for  you  Hodgkinson— I  began 
this  letter  last  night  but  was  too  much  distressed 
to  go  on  ...  read  this  more  than  once  &  take 
no  offence  at  it,  our  interest  is  one."68 

The  very  thing  which  Dunlap's  early  fall  open 
ing  plan  was  intended  to  prevent  took  place.  In 
August  Wignell  and  Reinagle  from  Philadelphia 

«7  Diary,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  2. 
«s  ibid.,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  34-5- 


56  JBilliam  SPunlap 

established  themselves  at  New  York  for  a  few 
weeks.  In  opposition  to  the  invaders,  Hodgkinson 
sent  Solee  to  hold  forth  at  John  Street, — another 
losing  venture,  for  the  town  could  not  support  two 
houses.  On  the  8th  of  September  Dunlap  returned 
with  his  family  to  the  city,  and  immediately 
busied  himself  trying  to  borrow  money.  Some 
months  before,  he  had  purchased  a  small  farm 
near  Amboy;  on  this  security  he  tried  to  raise 
$900  or  $1000,  but  somehow  money  was  not  forth 
coming.  He  wrote  Hodgkinson :  "I  am  running 
about  town  to  borrow,  subject  to  mortifications 
which  almost  weary  me  of  life."  Another  trial 
was  ill-health.  Then  in  October  that  most  dreaded 
of  pestilences,  yellow  fever,  struck  New  York; 
the  business  of  the  store  fell  off  in  consequence, 
the  apprentice  died  of  the  fever  in  Dunlap's  own 
house,  and  Judah,  his  mercantile  partner,  became 
ill.  But  in  the  midst  of  these  troubles  he  was  able 
to  spend  social  evenings  with  the  Woolseys,  to  con 
verse  with  Mitchill  on  chemistry  and  agriculture, 
to  induct  John  into  the  mysteries  of  the  multiplica 
tion-table,  and  to  commence  a  novel.  His  buoy 
was  confidence  in  the  new  theatre.  He  wrote 
optimistically  to  Hodgkinson:  "I  believe  three 
years  of  your  spirited  direction,  with  strict  atten 
tion  to  your  interest  as  a  manager  and  less  solici 
tude  for  your  reputation  as  an  actor,  will  put  you 
above  the  necessity  of  being  either  manager  or 
actor."  In  this  hope  he  permitted  his  partner  to 
continue  the  losing  business  in  Boston  in  order  to 
keep  the  company  together  for  the  new  house. 


m  1 7fiH  to  1  Bfl5       5  7 

One  begins  to  suspect  that  Dunlap  was  not  a 
cautious  business  man.  Further  proof  is  the  fact 
that  he  went  to  Perth  Amboy  the  first  of  Novem 
ber,  and  agreed  to  purchase  a  small  piece  of  land 
adjoining  his  farm  for  $35O.69 

The  novel  which  Dunlap  began  writing  at  this 
time,  with  the  title  of  "The  Anti- Jacobin,"  never  got 
beyond  a  few  pages  in  his  Diary,  yet  the  fragment 
possesses  distinct  interest.  It  shows  considerable 
ability  at  narrative  and  portraiture,  but  it  is  chiefly 
important  for  the  light  it  throws  on  its  author's 
philosophy.  The  hero's  prospective  father-in-law 
repudiates  him  almost  at  the  altar  because  he  has 
become  a  radical  thinker,— a  Jacobin.  The  leading 
figure  is  a  narrow  and  bigoted  clergyman  who 
hates  anything  savoring  of  intellectual  independ 
ence.  "Enquiry,"  he  says,  "is  an  enemy  to  faith, 
&  without  faith  there  is  no  salvation."  This 
polemical  fragment  was  doubtless  inspired  by  the 
inspirer  of  so  much  radicalism  about  1800 — William 
Godwin.  Brown  was  a  disciple  of  the  philosopher, 
and  through  him  Dunlap  probably  became  ac 
quainted  with  the  tenets  of  the  school.  That  he 
read  "The  Inquirer"  in  the  summer  of  1797,  we 
learn  from  his  Diary,  and  he  must  have  been 
familiar  with  "Political  Justice"  as  well.  His  ac 
ceptance  of  Godwinism  showed  itself  elsewhere 
than  in  "The  Anti-Jacobin."  Writing  to  Holcroft 
concerning  slavery,  he  propounded  this  Godwinian 
aphorism:  "That  which  is  good,  is  only  so,  be- 

69  For  this  paragraph  see  Diary,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  51,  59-Q6, 
ioo ;  Vol.  XV,  p.  122. 


58  3©iHiam  SDtinlap 

cause  it  produces  happiness."  In  two  magazine 
articles  written  during  the  autumn,  he  expressed 
Godwinian  opinions  on  justice  and  virtue.  And 
finally,  he  seems  at  this  time  to  have  leaned  toward 
religious  skepticism,  if  we  may  judge  from  an 
entry  in  his  Diary:  "Mrs.  Woolsey  ye  younger 
made  some  indirect  attacks  on  my  infidelity" ;  and 
from  his  contempt  for  Timothy  Dwight's  sermons 
on  infidel  philosophy,  which  he  considered  an  "in 
temperate  farrago  of  falsehood  and  abuse."70 

To  return  to  affairs  theatrical:  Hodgkinson 
having  left  Boston,  Dunlap  set  out  for  that  city 
on  the  1 7th  of  November  to  square  up  finances. 
The  journey  was  eventful.  Snow  and  rain  fell 
constantly,  the  Connecticut  River  was  crossed  amid 
ice,  and  at  Shrewsbury  the  stage-coach  lost  a  rear 
wheel,  in  which  accident  the  chivalrous  Dunlap 
"had  the  felicity  of  supporting  miss  polly  pease, 
the  landlord's  daughter."  At  Boston  he  found  no 
other  course  open  but  to  sign  more  notes.  In 
cidentally  he  hobnobbed  with  the  Federalists,  asso 
ciated  with  Josiah  Quincy  and  Jedidiah  Morse, 
read  Voltaire,  and  worked  on  a  play  called  "Andre" 
which  he  had  begun  some  years  before.  He  re 
turned  from  this  futile  journey  in  the  middle  of 
December.71 

The  new  theatre  had  been  promised  for  October, 
but  it  was  yet  far  from  ready.  The  managers  had 
no  alternative  but  to  open  at  John  Street  in  order 

™  Diary,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  6,  71 ;  Vol.  XV,  p.  133;  see  post, 
pp.  272-3. 
™  Ibid.,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  105-141 ;  Vol.  XV,  p.  i. 


25iograpl)p  from  1 7  Bfi  to  1 B05       5  9 

to  make  at  least  a  part  of  the  salaries  of  the  com 
pany,  which  had  been  augmented  in  anticipation 
of  the  larger  house.  Delay  was  not  the  only  ir 
ritation.  The  partners  had  failed  to  obtain  the 
signatures  of  the  building  committee  to  their 
agreement ;  the  proprietors,  taking  advantage  of 
this  oversight,  reduced  the  term  of  the  lease  at 
the  agreed  rate  from  three  and  a  half  years  to  one, 
and  demanded  free  tickets  to  every  performance 
for  all  the  stockholders.  The  partners  indignantly 
resented  these  impositions,  and  in  the  final  contract 
a  compromise  was  made  by  which  the  rent  was 
slightly  reduced  in  exchange  for  113  free  tickets 
nightly.72  But  the  length  of  the  lease  remained 
uncertain. 

At  John  Street,  Dunlap  and  Hodgkinson  were 
losing  consistently.  As  a  last  resource,  on  January 
29,  1798,  they  moved  into  the  new  theatre,  though 
it  was  still  unfinished.  The  program  consisted  of 
an  address  written  by  E.  H.  Smith,  a  curtain- 
raiser  called  "All  in  a  Bustle;  or,  The  New 
House,"  by  Milne,  "As  You  Like  It,"  and  a  farce, 
"The  Purse ;  or,  American  Tar."  The  great  event 
was  advertised  at  length  in  the  newspapers  several 

72  Diary,  Vol.  XV,  pp.  16  ff.  The  rent  was  proportioned 
to  the  nightly  receipts  as  follows : 

7^  per  cent,  on  a  $500  to  $600  house. 
I2.y2  per  cent,  on  a  600  to  700  house. 
15  per  cent,  on  a  700  to  800  house. 
t-7l/2  per  cent,  on  a  800  to  1200  house. 
20  per  cent,  on  a  1200  up  house. 
10  per  cent,  on  benefit  nights. 


60  B^illiam  Dunlap 

days  in  advance  with  such  instructions  to  patrons 
as  these : 

"Ladies  and  gentlemen  are  requested  to  be  par 
ticular  in  sending  servants  early  to  keep  boxes." 

"The  offensive  practice  to  Ladies,  and  dangerous 
one  to  the  house,  of  smoking  segars,  during  the 
performance,  it  is  hoped,  every  gentleman  will  con 
sent  to  an  absolute  prohibition  of." 

"Ladies  and  Gentlemen  will  please  to  direct  their 
servants  to  set  doivn  with  their  horses  heads 
towards  the  New  Brick  Meeting,  and  take  up  with 
their  heads  towards  Broad  Way." 

"The  doors  will  be  opened  at  5,  and  the  curtain 
drawn  up  at  a  quarter  past  6  o'clock."73 

On  the  opening  night  the  crowd  was  so  large 
that  many  pushed  in  without  tickets.  The  receipts 
were  $1232.  Everybody  was  delighted  with  the 
new  house,  which  was  much  larger  and  better  ar 
ranged  than  the  old  one,  and  especially  with  the 
scenery,  which  was  said  to  surpass  anything  ever 
seen  in  America.74  Dunlap  was  wonderfully  set 
up  over  the  success.  At  last  his  hopes  were  about 
to  be  realized,  his  dream  of  a  popular  theatre  with 
the  productions  under  his  control  was  about  to 
come  true.  In  his  exuberance  he  sent  $100  to 
Perth  Amboy  in  part  payment  for  the  new  land, 
which  before  he  was  on  the  point  of  relinquishing ; 
and  subscribed  $20  to  a  fund  for  the  relief  of  an 

73  "Commercial  Advertiser,"  January  26  and  following 
issues. 

74  "American  Theatre,"  p.  221,  states  that  by  this  time 
over  $127,000  had  been  spent  on  the  building,  and  only 
about  $42,000  paid  in  by  subscribers.     Dunlap  considered 
it  a  monument  of  waste  and  mismanagement. 


from  1 7BH  to  1  Bfl5       6 1 

embarrassed  actor.  But  the  next  playing  night 
brought  in  only  $513,  the  third  $265,  and  Dunlap 
was  again  in  the  depths.  Indeed  by  February  7 
business  was  so  bad  that  he  seriously  considered 
closing  the  establishment.75 

At  the  end  of  February,  however,  there  was 
reason  for  a  little  more  optimism  because  of  the 
enthusiastic  reception  accorded  to  Cooper,  a 
recently  engaged  actor.  Thomas  Abthorpe  Cooper 
was  an  Englishman,  twenty-two  years  old,  who 
had  been  reared  by  Godwin.  In  1796  he  was  play 
ing  in  the  provinces  with  distinction,  when  Wig- 
nell  arrived  and  hired  him  for  Philadelphia.  He 
performed  in  New  York  in  August,  1797,  with  the 
Philadelphia  Company,  and  was  preferred  to  all 
other  tragedians  ever  seen  in  the  city.  When  he 
broke  with  Wignell  and  Reinagle  a  few  months 
later,  he  found  a  ready  opening  at  New  York.  On 
the  28th  of  February  Cooper  made  his  bow  as 
Hamlet  before  a  house  of  $895.  In  a  few  days 
"King  John"  was  given ;  it  seems  to  have  been  an 
unusually  artistic  performance,  for  the  warmest 
praise  was  bestowed  not  only  on  Cooper's  acting, 
but  also  on  the  general  conduct  of  the  stage,  as 
well  as  on  the  costumes  and  scenery.76 

It  was  soon  discovered  that  Cooper  was  not  a 
harbinger  of  permanent  good  fortune.  The  re 
ceipts  began  falling  below  expenses.  One  night 

75  Diary,  Vol.  XV,  pp.  39,  45 ;  "American  Theatre,"  p. 
218. 

76  "Commercial  Advertiser,"  March  5.    That  Dunlap,  in 
producing  plays,  strove  for  settings  that  were  both  attrac 
tive  and  historically  accurate,  we  learn  from  his  Diary,  in 
which  he  spoke  of  his  researches  for  this  purpose. 


62  iBifliam  SDunlap 

the  house  contained  $99.  But  when  Dunlap's 
"Andre"  was  brought  out  on  March  30  to  an  $800 
audience,  a  temporary  relief  was  experienced. 
This  play  had  received  the  author's  most  careful 
labor;  he  had  revised  and  polished  it  for  months, 
he  had  staged  it  with  new  costumes  and  scenery, 
and  he  expected  some  comfortable  returns.  But 
two  accidents  occurred  the  first  night  which  helped 
consign  the  play  to  an  early  demise.  In  the  first 
place,  Cooper,  who -was  developing  careless  habits 
of  study,  had  imperfectly  memorized  his  part.  In 
a  scene— the  most  pathetic  of  the  tragedy— be 
tween  him  and  Hodgkinson,  his  memory  failed, 
and  the  actor,  "after  repeating,  'Oh,  Andre!— oh, 
Andre !'  .  .  .  approached  the  unfortunate  Andre, 
who  in  vain  waited  for  his  cue,  and  falling  in  a 
burst  of  sorrow  on  his  neck,  cried,  loud  enough  to 
he  heard  at  the  side  scene,  'Oh,  Andre !— damn  the 
prompter!— Oh,  Andre!  What's  next,  Hodgkin 
son,'  and  sunk  in  unutterable  sorrow  on  the 
breast  of  his  overwhelmed  friend."  In  the  second 
place,  when  the  American  champion  of  Andre  tore 
the  cockade  from  his  hat  in  his  wrath  at  the  spy's 
sentence,  there  was  a  protest  from  the  audience. 
Dunlap  altered  the  objectionable  part,  but  on  the 
second  night  the  play  was  given  to  a  house  of 
only  $271,  and  the  third  and  last  night  for  the 
author's  benefit  to  $329.™ 

77  "American  Theatre,"  p.  223 ;  Diary,  Vol.  XV,  pp.  76, 
78,  82.  The  prison  scene  from  the  last  act  of  "Andre" 
was  included  in  the  matinee  of  American  plays  given  on 
January  22  and  23,  1917,  at  the  Republic  Theatre  by  the 
New  York  Center  of  the  Drama  League  of  America. 


23io0raj»l)p  from  Ufifi  to  1B05       63 

In  the  spring  of  1798  the  proprietors  of  the  New 
Theatre  saw  fit  to  end  the  existing  lease  and  to 
require  a  rent  of  $5000  for  the  ensuing  year. 
Hodgkinson  found  this  a  convenient  opportunity 
to  withdraw  from  the  concern  in  order  to  assume 
the  managership  at  Boston,  and  Hallam,  to  whom 
an  offer  of  whole  or  part  ownership  was  made, 
preferred  to  continue  as  a  salaried  actor.78  In 
consequence,  on  the  27th  of  April,  William  Dunlap 
signed  articles  by  which  he  became  sole  director 
and  manager  of  the  New  York  theatre. 

The  season  closed  on  June  29,  and  Dunlap  re 
tired  to  Perth  Amboy.  He  had  reengaged  nearly 
all  his  old  company,  and  with  the  theatre  decorated 
and  improved,  and  a  new  stock  of  scenery,  he 
planned  to  open  early  in  September  to  catch  the 
summer  visitors.  But  his  hopes  were  not  to  be 
realized.  Before  the  vacation  was  over,  the  city 
was  again  stricken  by  yellow  fever.  This  time  it 
broke  into  the  circle  of  Dunlap's  dearest  friends. 
Elihu  Hubbard  Smith,  while  attending  the  sick, 
was  seized  with  the  malady,  and  died  on  the  2Oth 
of  September  in  the  presence  of  Brown  and  John 
son.  Brown  himself  was  ailing,  and  with  Johnson 
he  repaired  to  the  healthier  atmosphere  of  Amboy. 
Here  the  three  friends  spent  several  weeks  together. 
Brown  wrote  to  his  brother:  "This  calamity  has 
endeared  the  survivors  of  the  sacred  fellowship, 

78  The  Hallams  continued  as  actors  in  the  New  York 
company  until  after  Dunlap's  retirement  in  1805. 


64  IDilUam  Dunlap 

W.  D.,  W.  J.,  and  myself  to  each  other  in  a  very 
high  degree."79 

While  New  York  was  still  in  mourning,  the 
theatre  was  opened  on  December  3  with  the 
"School  for  Scandal."  For  this  event  the  manager 
had  decorated  the  house  at  his  own  expense,  and 
had  thus  brought  it  to  a  passable  state  of  com 
pleteness.  The  New,  or  Park,  Theatre  stood  on 
lots  21,  23,  25  Park  Row,  about  two  hundred  feet 
north  of  Ann  Street.  It  was  a  very  plain,  three- 
story  stone  building,  with  a  frontage  of  eighty 
feet  and  a  depth  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-five. 
Half  a  dozen  steps  led  up  to  the  entrance.  It  was 
the  original  intention  to  add  a  porch  with  a  colon 
nade,  but  it  never  materialized.  Within,  you 
passed  the  box-office  on  your  right  and  entered  a 
wide  lobby,  which  admitted  you  to  the  auditorium. 
The  stage  was  large  in  comparison  with  others 
then  known,  and  bowed  well  out  into  the  orchestra. 
The  pit  was  considered  remarkably  commodious. 
The  boxes,  which  were  named  after  noted  dram 
atists,  were  arranged  around  the  pit  in  three  semi 
circles.  The  lower  circle  contained  sixteen  boxes, 
and  the  second  twelve;  in  this  circle,  the  center 
box,  which  bore  the  name  of  Shakespeare,  was 
large  enough  to  seat  two  or  three  hundred.  In  the 
third  row  the  boxes  extended  only  along  the 
side  of  the  semi-circle,  the  middle  being  taken 
up  by  a  gallery.  There  were  in  addition  four  or 
five  private  proscenium  boxes.  Cushioned  benches 
rather  than  separate  chairs  were  used,  except  in 

79  Dunlap,  "Life  of  Brown,"  Vol.  II,  p.  10. 


m  ITHfi  to  1B05       65 

the  gallery,  where  the  cushions  were  no  doubt 
omitted.  The  total  capacity  was  probably  in  the 
neighborhood  of  sixteen  hundred.  A  much 
praised  feature  was  the  absence  of  all  supporting 
pillars,  which  gave  every  one  a  clear  view  of  the 
stage.  The  richness  of  the  decorations  was  said 
to  surpass  anything  in  America.  The  dome,  which 
corresponded  in  area  to  the  pit,  was  azure,  with 
clouds  and  celestial  forms,  and  carried  in  front  a 
medallion  of  Washington,  sustained  by  an  eagle. 
Over  the  stage  and  each  range  of  boxes  hung  a 
canopy  of  green  and  gold.  The  curtain  of  blue 
mohair,  fringed  in  gold,  contained  in  the  center  a 
lyre  and  the  motto:  "To  hold  the  Mirror  up  to 
Nature."  At  various  points  about  the  room  there 
were  engaged  columns  of  the  Corinthian  order, 
and  numerous  plaster  figures.  Elaborate  chande 
liers,  totaling  seventy-six  lights,  illuminated  the 
house  with  the  glow  of  candles.80 

The  company  consisted  of  about  twenty  actors, 
an  orchestra  of  fourteen,  and  a  dozen  or  more 
helpers,  including  a  scene-painter  and  a  prompter. 
The  weekly  expenses  of  the  institution  were  $1161 
without  counting  any  remuneration  for  the  man 
ager's  services,— and  the  first  week's  receipts  were 
$997. 

The  second  week  saw  Dunlap's  most  important 
innovation.  On  December  10  he  staged  his  ver 
sion  of  Kotzebue's  "Stranger"  with  Cooper  in  the 

80  "Commercial  Advertiser,"  January  31  and  December 
4,  1798;  T.  A.  Brown,  Vol.  I,  pp.  11-12;  "American  The 
atre,"  p.  344. 


66  BDiHiam  SPunlap 

title-role.  Happily  for  the  director,  this  play  took 
the  town.  It  was  given  at  least  twelve  times  dur 
ing  the  season  and  proved  the  support  of  the 
theatre.81  Its  success  determined  the  adapter  to 
exploit  its  author  further,  and  for  this  purpose 
he  set  about  improving  his  rather  meagre  German. 
In  January,  1799,  Dunlap  presented  an  opera  he 
had  written,  called  "Sterne's  Maria;  or,  The 
Vintage,"  with  music  by  Pelisier,  a  member  of 
the  orchestra.  Cooper  and  Jefferson  were  among 
the  performers.  The  opera  was  elaborately  gotten 
up,  and  met  with  enough  encouragement  to  war 
rant  four  or  five  repetitions.  Early  in  February 
"The  Natural  Daughter,"  a  comedy  by  the  same 
author,  was  brought  out.  It  was  "complicated 
and  ineffective,  and  was  most  wretchedly  played 
in  a  cold  winter's  storm,  to  empty  benches,  and 
never  repeated."82  But  the  writer  was  now  well 
started  on  a  play-writing  orgy,  and  the  product 
came  thick  and  fast.  On  Washington's  Birth 
day  he  contributed  "The  Temple  of  Independence," 
a  musical  afterpiece.83  His  second  adaptation 
from  Kotzebue,  "Lovers'  Vows,"  appeared  on  the 
nth  of  March,  with  Cooper  in  the  leading  part. 
It  was  as  well  received  as  its  predecessor,  being 
given  eight  or  ten  times  during  the  remainder  of 
the  season,  and  retaining  a  place  in  the  New  York 
repertories  for  at  least  forty  years.  Next  came 
Kotzebue's  "Count  Benyowski"  on  April  i, — 

81  It  was  repeated  frequently  for  many  years. 

82  "American  Theatre,"  p.  260. 

83  Repeated  on  July  4. 


from  ITfifi  to  1BH5       67 

highly  lauded  for  its  beautiful  Russian  scenery 
and  costumes.  But  the  play  did  not  prove  lastingly 
popular.84  Two  weeks  later  "The  Italian  Father" 
made  its  appearance  on  the  boards.  It  was  in 
reality  the  work  of  Dunlap,  but  was  thought  to 
be  another  translation  from  Kotzebue,  and  was 
praised  accordingly.  The  author,  fearing  the 
prejudice  against  American  literature,  did  not  dis 
pel  the  illusion.  Perhaps  the  secret  leaked  out; 
at  any  rate,  the  drama  had  an  unsensational 
career.85  Early  in  May  the  manager  attempted 
another  German  dramatist,  Schiller,  but  New 
York  did  not  find  "Don  Carlos"  to  its  liking,  and 
it  was  not  repeated.  "Indians  in  England,"  another 
Kotzebue-Dunlap  play,  was  given  a  single  per 
formance  on  June  14.  On  the  4th  of  July  the 
"apparently  indefatigable  manager,"  as  he  called 
himself,  closed  the  season  with  "The  School  for 
Soldiers,"  which  he  had  altered  from  the  French.86 
The  year  had  been  an  intensely  busy  one  for 
Dunlap.  Aside  from  managing  the  finances, 
supervising  the  productions,  and  attending  to  the 
multitude  of  details  involved  in  running  a  large 
theatre,  he  had  written  or  adapted  ten  new  pieces 
and  presented  them  before  the  public.  It  had 

84  Given  about  seven  times  at  New  York  the  first  two 
or  three   years,   and   revived    for   two  performances   in 
1814.    Given  at  Boston  in  1799-1800. 

85  Given  three  times  this  season,  performed  at  Boston 
in  the  fall,  and  revived  at  New  York  for  a  single  night  in 
1802. 

86  Repeated  four  or  five  times  on  national  holidays  dur 
ing  the  next  few  years. 


68  IDillum  Dunlap 

been  an  important  year  for  the  American  stage 
because  of  the  number  and  popularity  of  the  Ger 
man  plays.  Hitherto  our  theatre  had  been  domi 
nated  by  British  drama,  but  a  powerful  rival  was 
now  in  the  field.  In  many  ways  it  was  the  most 
comfortable  season  Dunlap  had  ever  gone  through. 
Peace  prevailed  in  the  greenroom;  there  was  no 
headstrong  partner  to  turn  his  plans  upside  down ; 
and  financially,  thanks  to  Kotzebue,  he  was  able  to 
make  both  ends  meet,  though  he  seems  to  have 
realized  little  or  no  profit.  For  the  next  year  he 
secured  the  theatre  at  a  rent  of  $4000.  But  he  had 
made  an  arrangement  which  was  to  result  in 
further  annoyance  and  distress.  Hodgkinson's 
Boston  enterprise  having  proved  unsatisfactory, 
he  had  offered  to  return  to  New  York,  and  Dun- 
lap,  whether  from  pity,  hope  of  profit,  or  fatal 
fascination,  agreed  to  accept  both  him  and  his  wife 
at  a  joint  salary  of  $100  a  week. 

As  usual,  Dunlap  summered  in  Perth  Amboy, 
where  he  employed  himself  in  translating  further 
plays  of  the  favorite  German  dramatist.  Be 
cause  of  another  visitation  of  yellow  fever,  the 
theatre  did  not  open  in  the  autumn  until  Novem 
ber  1 8.  Three  weeks  later  "False  Shame,"  a 
new  translation  from  Kotzebue,  was  presented. 
Though  devoid  of  scenery,  this  production  gained 
great  popularity  through  the  splendid  acting  of 
Hodgkinson  and  Miss  Ellen  Westray.  It  proved 
the  support  of  the  house  this  year,  but  was  seldom 
seen  thereafter. 

On  the  I4th  of  December,  1799,  occurred  the 


om  ITfifi  to  1B05       69 

death  of  Washington.  The  news  reaching  New 
York  on  the  2Oth,  the  theatre  was  closed  for  ten 
days.  It  reopened  on  the  3Oth  for  a  kind  of 
memorial  program.  The  auditorium  was  draped 
in  black.  As  an  overture  the  band  played  "Wash 
ington's  March";  then  a  monody,  written  by  C. 
B.  Brown,  was  spoken  by  Cooper,  who  unfortu 
nately  had  to  be  prompted  throughout.  A  new 
play,  "The  Robbery,"  translated  from  the  French 
by  Dunlap,  and  a  comic  opera  as  afterpiece, 
rather  inappropriately  ended  the  program.  The 
play  was  poorly  given,  chiefly  because  of  Cooper's 
lapses  of  memory,  and  was  repeated  but  once. 
Meanwhile  greenroom  difficulties  were  develop 
ing.  Cooper,  feeling  himself  unjustly  treated  by 
the  manager  and  thrown  into  the  shade  by  Hodg- 
kinson,  broke  his  connection  with  the  company 
at  the  end  of  the  year.  This  was  a  severe  blow 
to  the  Park,  but  the  vogue  of  Hodgkinson  in 
German  drama  was  a  partial  offset. 

Dunlap  continued  to  dig  for  treasure  in  the 
Teutonic  mine.  Late  in  January,  1800,  he  pro 
duced  "The  Wild  Goose  Chace,"  altered  into  an 
opera  from  Kotzebue's  farce.  The  play  itself 
had  merit,  and  Hodgkinson's  acting  made  it  a 
success.87  In  March  the  translator  began  pub 
lishing  his  German  plays  in  a  series  called  "The 
German  Theatre."  The  first  of  this  series,  which 
did  not  go  beyond  the  third  number,  was  "The 

87  Given  at  Philadelphia  this  season.  The  next  winter 
reduced  to  two  acts,  and  as  an  afterpiece  occasionally 
seen  for  three  or  four  years. 


70  William  SDunlap 

Wild  Goose  Chace."  It  was  printed  in  pamphlet 
form  with  portraits  of  Kotzebue  and  Hodgkin- 
son;  it  included  a  brief  autobiography  of  the 
author,  and  a  few  notes  marking  the  variations 
from  the  original. 

The  opera  was  followed  within  two  weeks  by 
"The  Force  of  Calumny,"  which  was  a  moderate 
success.  On  the  I2th  of  March  appeared  "The 
Virgin  of  the  Sun,"  one  of  the  longest-lived  of 
Kotzebue's  plays  on  the  American  stage.  It  was 
given  five  or  six  times  this  season  with  consider 
able  spectacle,  and  periodically  revived  during  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  As  the 
second  number  of  "The  German  Theatre"  it  was 
printed  in  1800. 

"Pizarro,"  sequel  to  "The  Virgin  of  the  Sun," 
came  close  on  the  heels  of  its  precursor.  Its 
premiere  occurred  on  March  26;  it  was  repeated 
at  least  six  times  during  the  spring,  and  published 
as  the  third  number  of  "The  German  Theatre." 
Of  all  Kotzebue's  plays  acted  in  New  York,  it  was 
far  and  away  the  most  permanently  popular.  Dur 
ing  the  forty  years  that  I  have  investigated,  it  was 
given  approximately  two  hundred  times,  while  its 
nearest  competitor,  "The  Stranger,"  was  given 
only  half  as  often.88 

The  last  adaptation  from  the  German  this  season 
was  "The  Stranger's  Birthday,"  a  two-act  comedy 

88  The  British  translations  of  a  number  of  these  plays 
seem  to  have  been  used  in  New  York  after  a  few  years ; 
so  the  figures  do  not  necessarily  include  Dunlap's  trans 
lations  alone. 


23iograpl)p  from  1 7  fia  to  1  Bfl5       7 1 

which  appeared  and  disappeared  on  the  manager's 
benefit  night.  The  theatrical  year  closed  on  July 
4,  1800.  Dunlap  had  been  only  less  productive  this 
season  than  the  last,  having  translated  at  least 
seven  plays,  six  of  them  by  Kotzebue.  The  year 
must  have  been  a  fairly  encouraging  one  finan 
cially.  To  an  outsider  the  theatre  seemed  harmo 
nious  and  peaceful,  "but  all  within  was  discord  and 
discontent."89 

Throughout  this  season  there  had  been  much 
activity  on  the  part  of  the  newspaper  critics,  a 
tribe  which  began  asserting  itself  in  1796. 
Previous  to  that  date  newspaper  comment  had 
been  almost  entirely  eulogistic,  but  from  then  on, 
the  critics  assumed  the  right  of  condemning  what 
ever  they  chose.  In  1799-1800  they  had  little  else 
than  praise  for  the  German  dramas,  but  the  actors 
were  ruthlessly  handled,  and  the  staging  was  some 
times  ridiculed.  The  players  retaliated,  threatened 
personal  violence,  and  tried  to  muzzle  their  an 
tagonists,  which  only  spurred  them  on  to  new 
attacks. 

The  season  of  1800-1  began  somewhat  earlier 
than  usual  on  the  2Oth  of  October.  Four  days 
later,  to  the  delight  of  theatre-goers,  another 
comedy  by  Kotzebue  was  most  admirably  played 
with  Hodgkinson  and  Jefferson  in  the  leading 
parts.  "Fraternal  Discord"  proved  to  be  one  of 
Dunlap's  most  enduring  translations.  It  outlived 
the  six  or  seven  repetitions  of  its  first  year,  and 
continued  to  reappear  for  almost  half  a  century. 

89  "American  Theatre,"  p.  276. 


72  IDiliiani  DunJnp 

To  vary  the  monotony  of  German  adaptation, 
the  dramatist  produced  an  opera,  "The  Knight  of 
Guadalquiver,"  with  music  by  Hewit,  the  orchestra 
leader.  After  two  poorly  attended  performances 
in  December,  it  was  withdrawn  and  forgotten. 

The  manager's  troubles  were  again  multiplying. 
Receipts  had  for  some  weeks  fallen  below  ex 
penses,  and  Hodgkinson,  unrestrained  by  the 
rivalry  of  Cooper,  was  demanding  everything,  from 
a  wardrobe  appropriation  to  an  equal  share  in  the 
directing.  Dunlap  feared  to  alienate  him  and 
granted  all  except  the  last  demand,  but  hostility 
resulted  none  the  less.  Dunlap  no  doubt  became 
irritable,  and  Hodgkinson  magnified  every  cause 
for  offense.  Quarrels  were  inevitable;  the  actor 
threatened  blows,  and  the  manager  was  accused  of 
carrying  pistols. 

In  the  midst  of  such  difficulties,  Dunlap  placed 
one  of  his  most  popular  translations  on  the  stage. 
On  the  nth  of  February,  1801,  "Abaellino,  the 
Great  Bandit,"  adapted  from  the  German  of 
Zschokke,  began  a  long  career.  It  was  given  at 
least  nine  times  this  spring,  and  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century  it  was  one  of  the  New  York  stand-bys. 
Nor  was  it  confined  to  New  York.  It  was  soon 
to  be  seen  at  Philadelphia,  Boston,  Albany, 
Charleston,  and  indeed  at  almost  every  theatre  in 
the  United  States. 

By  way  of  commemorating  Washington's  Birth 
day,  Dunlap's  patriotism  again  took  dramatic 
form.  As  an  afterpiece  to  "The  School  for 
Soldiers"  he  brought  out  "The  Soldier  of  '76," 


22>iograj>f)p  from  ITfifi  to  1B05       73 

which  seems  to  have  been  shelved  immediately. 
A  drama  from  the  French,  "Abbe  de  1'fipee,"  was 
acted  in  March,  and  repeated  five  or  six  times  to 
the  general  satisfaction. 

The  receipts  this  year  having  fallen  below  those 
of  the  last  two  years,  the  manager  resolved  on  a 
summer  campaign.  For  this  purpose  he  engaged 
Cooper  and  Mrs.  Merry,  both  of  Philadelphia. 
Mrs.  Merry,  the  wife  of  Robert  Merry  the  Delia 
Cruscan,  had  come  to  this  country  in  1796,  and 
had  gained  the  reputation  of  being  the  most  ac 
complished  actress  in  America.  The  theatre  was 
kept  open  during  July,  but  partly  because  of  Mrs. 
Merry's  illness  the  financial  situation  was  not  im 
proved. 

With  the  welcome  addition  of  Cooper,  the  Park 
resumed  activities  on  November  16,  1801,  but  at 
the  start  the  business  was  a  losing  one.  The  Ger 
man  mine  was  beginning  to  run  out,  and  striking 
novelties  were  not  easily  obtained.  In  December 
a  farce,  "Where  Is  He?"  translated  by  Dunlap 
from  the  German,  was  put  on;  and  in  February, 
1802,  appeared  another  afterpiece,  "The  Merry 
Gardener,"  a  comic  opera  from  the  French.  On 
July  5  came  an  original  play,  "The  Retrospect ;  or, 
The  American  Revolution."90  During  this  season 
the  manager  seems  to  have  grown  careless  in  the 
conduct  of  the  stage  business,  a  defect  on  which 

90  "Where  Is  He?"  was  acted  four  times  this  year  and 
twice  in  1810.  "The  Merry  Gardener"  was  given  three 
times  this  season.  "The  Retrospect"  seems  not  to  have 
been  repeated. 


74  IBilliam  SDunlap 

the  critics  frequently  commented.  The  battles 
were  spiritless  and  silent,  the  grouping  was  awk 
ward,  and  at  times  the  actors  behind  the  scenes 
failed  to  appear  until  summoned  by  those  on  the 
stage.  On  the  whole,  the  year  was  not  particularly 
creditable  either  in  the  manner  of  performing  the 
old  plays  or  in  the  quality  of  the  new  ones. 

Dunlap's  offerings  in  1802-3  were  of  a  more 
dignified  character.  The  first  was  "Peter  the 
Great;  or,  The  Russian  Mother,"  from  the  Ger 
man;  it  was  given  twice  in  November  with  small 
success  in  spite  of  the  acting  of  Cooper  and  Hodg- 
kinson.91  "Liberal  Opinions,"  an  original  sketch, 
did  not  survive  its  first  appearance  in  January. 
"The  Voice  of  Nature,"  translated  from  the 
French,  was  introduced  in  February  and  became 
a  favorite  stock-piece.  This  was  shortly  suc 
ceeded  by  "The  Good  Neighbor,"  a  brief  interlude 
from  IfHand ;  and  this  by  the  last  of  the  Kotzebue 
translations,  "The  Blind  Boy,"  which  was  almost  a 
failure.92  The  final  piece  of  the  season  was  "The 
Glory  of  Columbia — Her  Yeomanry!"  a  patriotic 
medley  elaborately  staged  on  the  4th  of  July  be 
fore  a  $1287  audience.  The  battle  scene  was  par 
ticularly  spectacular,  judging  from  the  newspaper 
advertisement : 

A  VIEW  OF  YORKTOWN 

With  the  British  lines,  and  the  lines  of  the  be 
siegers.  Nearer  the  audience  are  the  advanced 

91  Revived  for  two  performances  in  1815. 

92  Each  of  the  last  three  plays  was  given  about  four 
times  this  season. 


from  1TBB  to  1B05       75 

battalions  of  the  besieged.  Cannonading  com 
mences  from  the  Americans  upon  the  town,  which 
is  returned.  Shells  thrown  into  the  town.  Explosion 
of  a  powder  magazine.  The  French  troops  ad 
vance  towards  the  most  distant  of  the  advanced 
batteries;  the  battalion  begins  to  cannonade,  but 
is  carried  at  the  bayonets  point.  (This  is  done  by 
artificial  figures  in  perspective.)  While  this  is  yet 
doing,  the  nearest  battalion  begins  to  cannonade, 
and  the  American  Infantry  rushing  to  the  charge, 
they  attack  and  carry  it  with  fixed  bayonets. 
(This  is  done  by  boys  completely  equip' d  and  of 
a  size  to  correspond  in  perspective  with  the  ma 
chinery  and  the  scenery.}  The  British  are  seen 
asking  quarter,  which  is  given.93 

For  many  years  the  play  was  employed  on  national 
holidays  at  New  York  and  elsewhere,  and  always 
drew  crowded  houses. 

The  continuance  of  defective  stage  business 
called  forth  a  rebuke  that  has  become  literature. 
In  the  fall  of  1802  Washington  Irving  began  his 
"Letters  of  Jonathan  Oldstyle,  Gent.,"  criticizing 
the  theatre  with  Addisonian  humor  and  whimsical 
ity.  These  letters  throw  considerable  light  on 
theatrical  conditions.  Among  the  actors,  Hodg- 
kinson  was  the  chief  subject  of  ridicule.  His 
rotundity  and  his  rant,  breast-slapping,  and  gen 
eral  showy  manner  were  frequently  burlesqued. 
The  lifeless  conduct  and  stiff  grouping  of  the  supers 
were  berated,  as  well  as  the  incongruous  mixture 
of  costumes  to  be  seen  in  one  play.  It  was  as- 

93  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  July  3,  1803. 


76  n^illtam  SDunlap 

serted  that  "while  one  actor  is  strutting  about  the 
stage  in  the  cuirass  and  helmet  of  Alexander,  an 
other,  dressed  up  in  a  gold-laced  coat  and  bag- 
wig,  with  a  chapeau  de  bras  under  his  arm,  is  tak 
ing  snuff  in  a  fashion  of  one  or  two  centuries  back, 
and  perhaps  a  third  figures  in  Suwarrow  boots, 
in  the  true  style  of  modern  buckism."  The  or 
chestra  was  reprimanded  for  constant  repetition  of 
the  tunes  it  had  used  for  years.  The  audience 
also  came  in  for  its  share  of  attention.  The  oc 
cupants  of  the  boxes,  ignoring  the  performance, 
talked  continually,  according  to  Jonathan,  and 
contrived  to  display  themselves  as  much  as  pos 
sible.  The  gallery  gods,  who  were  watched  over 
by  a  constable,  compensated  for  the  lack  of 
music  by  their  Noah's-ark  tumult,  and  used  their 
surplus  gingerbread  and  apples  as  missiles.  Ir- 
ving's  attacks  greatly  angered  the  actors,  but  the 
manager  seems  to  have  taken  them  in  good  part, 
for  he  published  portions  of  them  in  his  stage 
history. 

Soon  after  assuming  the  reins  of  government 
Dunlap  had  discovered  that  the  audiences  were  not 
sufficiently  cultivated  to  dispense  with  diversions 
of  a  physical  kind,  and,  much  as  he  deplored  the 
custom,  he  was  compelled  frequently  to  introduce 
acrobatics  and  other  spectacles.  For  instance,  in 
1798  an  evening  was  concluded  by  a  leap  through 
the  throat  of  a  fiery  dragon.  In  1799  a  pantomime 
on  the  career  of  Don  Juan  ended  with  that  hero's 
precipitation  into  the  inferno  amid  a  tremendous 
shower  of  fire.  Late  in  1802  a  marvelous  person 


1 T  Hfi  to  1 8fl5       7  7 

was  advertised  to  stand  on  his  head  and  revolve 
from  sixty  to  a  hundred  times  a  minute,  an  act 
aptly  styled  "The  Antipodean  Whirligig."  A  few 
months  later  one  Signer  Manfredi  charmed  the 
audience  by  performing  on  the  tight-rope  as  a 
prelude  to  "Romeo  and  Juliet." 

The  theatre  had  been  fairly  prosperous  in  the 
early  part  of  this  season,  but  in  January,  1803, 
Cooper  left  to  accept  an  offer  in  England,  and  the 
profits  commenced  to  decline.  In  February  the 
house  was  closed  for  two  weeks  because  every  per 
formance  meant  additional  loss.94  In  order  to 
wind  up  the  year's  business,  the  manager  was 
under  the  necessity  of  mortgaging  his  farm.  Pur 
suing  a  retrenchment  policy,  he  intimated  to  Hodg- 
kinson  that  some  reduction  of  salary  might  be  nec 
essary.  Thereupon  the  actor  for  the  last  time 
broke  his  connection  with  the  New  York  theatre. 
In  1805  he  fell  a  victim  to  yellow  fever. 

Dunlap,  who  was  capable  of  considerable  vin- 
dictiveness  toward  his  foes,  has  represented  Hodg- 
kinson  as  the  villain  in  the  tragedy  of  his  man 
agerial  downfall.  While  paying  tribute  to  the 
player's  histrionic  ability,  he  never  omitted  an 
opportunity  to  dwell  upon  the  annoyances  and 
losses  he  suffered  through  this  associate.  Un 
doubtedly  Hodgkinson's  ambition,  petty  jealousy, 
and  financial  unreliability  were  a  great  trial  to  the 
director,  yet  his  hold  on  the  public  was  not  a 
little  responsible  for  such  box-office  receipts  as 
there  were,  and  was  instrumental  in  postponing 

94  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  February  5,  1803. 


78  mHHiam  SDunlap 

Dunlap's  day  of  reckoning.  John  Hodgkinson  was 
without  question  the  most  useful  and  capable  actor 
on  our  early  stage.  Not  only  was  he  excellent  in 
comic,  tragic,  and  singing  parts,  but  he  was  one 
of  the  most  efficient  of  stage  supervisors  (a 
capacity  in  which  he  served  Dunlap)  because  of 
his  thorough  knowledge  of  the  theatre  and  his 
ability  to  direct  by  example.  But  certain  grave 
defects  incurred  Dunlap's  hostility,  and  the  friction 
was  unceasing. 

With  reduced  ranks  the  Park  reopened  its 
doors  on  November  14,  1803.  To  supplant  Hodg 
kinson,  John  E.  Harwood  of  the  Philadelphia 
company  was  engaged  as  stage  director  and  actor. 
As  a  comedian  he  ranked  so  high  that  Dunlap 
compared  him  to  John  Bannister ;  his  Falstaff  was 
the  best  yet  seen  in  this  country.  The  manager's 
contributions  this  year  were  four :  a  farce,  "Bona 
parte  in  England ;"  two  comedies,  "The  Proverb ; 
or,  Conceit  Can  Cure,  Conceit  Can  Kill,"  and 
"Lewis  of  Monte  Blanco;  or,  The  Transplanted 
Irishman"  (written  for  Harwood,  who  was  espe 
cially  good  as  a  Hibernian)  ;  and  a  French  transla 
tion,  "The  Wife  of  Two  Husbands."*5 

Considerable  attention  was  paid  this  season  to 
scenic  display.  Commenting  on  "Lewis  of  Monte 
Blanco,"  the  "Evening  Post"  of  March  13,  1804, 
said :  "The  explosion  scene  has  a  very  grand  effect 
and  reflects  credit  on  the  Theatre."  On  another 

95  The  farce  was  given  six  times  this  season,  revived  in 
1809  and  again  in  1833 ;  the  first  comedy  was  given  twice, 
the  second  seven  times ;  the  translation  was  acted  five 
times  in  rapid  succession  and  occasionally  revived  as  late 
as  1821. 


ITfifi  to  1BH5       79 

occasion  a  mill  with  a  running  stream  and  a  burn 
ing  house  lent  interest  to  the  evening's  program.96 
But  Dunlap's  efforts  were  unrequited.  The  re 
ceipts  seldom  equaled  the  expenses,  and  in  Feb 
ruary  the  house  was  closed  again  for  two  weeks. 
The  director,  however,  was  not  the  only  one  to 
whom  the  Park  proved  a  burden.  The  building 
was  heavily  mortgaged,  and  though  the  total  in 
vestment  amounted  to  $193,000  and  more,  the 
proprietors  offered  it  to  the  lessee  for  $85,000.  He 
named  $40,000  as  his  highest  price.  It  was  put  up 
at  auction  and  sold  for  $43,000.  Money  was  bor 
rowed  to  complete  the  structure,  but  completed  it 
never  was. 

On  October  22,  1804,  Dunlap's  last,  fatal  season 
began.97  The  only  bright  spot  was  a  visit  from 
Cooper,  who  acted  fourteen  nights  in  November  to 
paying  houses.  This  flicker  of  prosperity  pre 
cipitated  a  flood  of  bills,  and  the  manager  saw  the 
end  approaching.  On  January  I,  1805,  he  wrote: 
"Oppressed  with  disease  and  debt,  I  commence 
another  year  of  my  life  with  sentiments  of  gloom 
and  self-disapprobation."98  The  theatre  was  fi 
nally  closed  on  the  22d  of  February,  and  the  man 
who  for  nine  years  had  labored  so  unceasingly  to 
maintain  the  institution  declared  himself  insolvent. 
He  forfeited  his  property  of  every  kind.  For- 

96  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  January  26,  1804. 

97  The  sole  product  of  Dunlap's  pen  this  season  was 
"Nina,"  an  opera  from  the  French,  given  once  in  Decem 
ber   and   twice   in   February,   with   the   original    Parisian 
music. 

98  Quoted  from  the  Diary  in  the  "American  Theatre," 
p.  326. 


8o  BSilliam  SDunlap 

tunately  his  mother's  home  in  Perth  Amboy  was 
immune,  and  thither  he  repaired  with  his  family. 

A  survey  of  Dunlap's  theatrical  career  reveals 
the  fact  that  bankruptcy  was  impending  almost 
from  the  beginning.  Though  he  entered  on  the 
undertaking  at  a  favorable  point  in  our  dramatic 
history,  yet  the  odds  soon  arrayed  against  him  were 
more  than  he  could  surmount.  Yellow  fever  was 
one  of  his  most  persistent  foes.  Another  was  his 
own  poor  health ;  hardly  a  year  passed  in  which  he 
did  not  suffer  an  illness.  He  was  not  happy  in 
his  business  associates;  the  owners  of  the  house 
as  well  as  his  partners  proved  grasping,  unreliable, 
and  extravagant  in  financial  matters.  Moreover, 
the  theatrical  business  in  America  was  a  pre 
carious  one.  Few  managers  were  able  to  make  it 
pay  well  permanently,  and  others  besides  Dunlap 
found  it  ruinous.  His  worst  obstacles,  however, 
lay  within  himself.  Inside  knowledge  of  the 
theatre  he  had  none  when  he  became  one  of  its 
directors.  In  his  relations  with  others  he  lacked 
self-assertiveness.  His  good  nature  and  love  of 
peace  made  him  an  easy  prey  to  imposition.  But 
his  chief  deficiency  was  absence  of  business  fore 
sight.  He  was  willing  to  assume  large  obligations 
without  any  prospect  of  ever  being  able  to  meet 
them.  In  his  optimism  he  trusted  too  much  to  the 
future,  yet  for  him  the  future  had  an  uncomfort 
able  habit  of  proving  less  encouraging  than  the 
present. 

Dunlap's  methods  of  conducting  the  theatre  did 
not  materially  differ  from  those  of  his  predeces 
sors,  but  he  instituted  three  changes  which  were 


23iograpl)p  from  1  ?Hfi  to  1 B05       8 1 

of  importance  in  the  development  of  our  dramatic 
art.  i.  Having  had  experience  as  a  painter,  he 
emphasized  scenery  more  than  had  been  done  be 
fore.  The  scenic  effects  at  the  Park  Theatre  at 
their  best  must  have  been  entirely  adequate.  2.. 
During  the  period  of  his  control,  American  plays 
gained  a  more  prominent  place  on  the  New  York 
stage  than  they  had  previously  held.  This  was 
owing  in  a  large  measure  to  the  number  of  his 
own  plays  which  he  brought  out,  but  at  least  a 
dozen  other  playwrights  were  represented.  3.  His 
most  distinct  and  significant  contribution  was  a 
long  series  of  French  and  German  plays,  so  pre 
sented  as  to  develop  popular  interest  in  the 
dramatic  literature  of  Europe. 

The  managerial  career  of  William  Dunlap  pro 
vides  an  illuminating  commentary  on  the  state  of 
culture  in  New  York  about  the  beginning  of  the 
last  century.  Here  was  a  man  with  enough  faith 
in  the  moral  and  intellectual  benefits  of  a  properly 
conducted  stage  to  expend  a  large  sum  of  money 
and  enormous  labor  on  the  project,  not  primarily 
in  the  hope  of  financial  returns,  but  rather  for  the 
improvement  of  his  fellow-citizens.  But  culture 
was  distinctly  a  matter  of  the  individual  and  not 
of  the  masses.  The  theatre-going  public,  with 
little  regard  for  the  classics  of  English  drama 
and  still  less  for  the  productions  of  native  play 
wrights,  required  novelties  and  cheap  amusements. 
And  when  the  supply  fell  below  the  demand,  they 
permitted  the  exponent  of  a  cultural  theatre  to  be 
come  a  bankrupt. 


CHAPTER  II 
BIOGRAPHY  FROM  1805  TO  1839 


WILLIAM  DUNLAP  retired  from  the  the 
atre  with  the  realization  that  he  had  done 
his  best.  He  forfeited  neither  his  self-respect 
nor  the  esteem  of  his  friends.  That  he  retained 
the  good-will  of  his  company  is  attested  by  the 
performance  given  for  his  benefit  on  the  2ist  of 
June,  1805. 

But  Dunlap  was  not  merely  a  bankrupt.  He  was 
also  a  debtor  to  the  United  States  Government  on 
the  bond  of  a  New  Jersey  marshal  who  had  proved 
a  defaulter.  It  was  imperative,  therefore,  that  he 
hit  upon  a  source  of  revenue.  Apparently  his  first 
thought  was  to  adopt  the  profession  of  letters.1 
But  while  literary  plans  were  maturing,  bread 
must  be  earned.  The  most  immediate  expedient 
for  him  was  to  resume  his  brush  and  palette,  which 
had  been  but  rarely  employed  during  the  last 
dozen  years.  Miniature  painting  on  ivory  had 
become  a  profitable  branch  of  the  profession. 
Edward  Malbone,  the  recognized  leader  of  this 
department,  was  working  in  Boston  at  the  height 
of  his  success,  and  other  able  men  were  operating 

1  "Life  of  Brown,"  Vol.  II,  p.  112.     In  answering  the 
announcement  of  his  friend's  bankruptcy,  Brown   spoke 
discouragingly  of  Dunlap's  plan  for  a  literary  career. 
82 


25io0tapl)p  from  1BH5  to  1B39       83 

elsewhere.  Because  of  the  popularity  of  this 
branch,  Dunlap  resolved  to  attempt  painting  in 
miniature,  though  ignorant  of  some  of  the  es 
sentials  of  the  process. 

He  very  soon  found  Perth  Amboy  an  unproduc 
tive  field ;  so  with  his  paints  and  a  few  ivories  he 
started  forth  as  an  itinerant  artist,  as  many  an 
other  American  painter  had  done  before  him. 
Albany  was  the  city  to  which  he  first  journeyed. 
Here  he  was  cordially  welcomed  by  his  old  friend, 
James  Kent,  now  a  dignified  judge.  But  Albany 
did  not  take  kindly  to  miniature  painting,  and  the 
artist  moved  on  to  Boston,  where  he  arrived  with 
$6  in  his  pocket.  Sitters  were  readily  obtained 
at  $15  a  picture,  and  soon  Dunlap  was  able  to  send 
money  home  for  the  support  of  his  family.  His 
relations  with  his  fellow  artists  were  very  pleasant. 
The  acquaintance  with  Gilbert  Stuart,  begun  years 
before  in  London,  was  renewed;  and  Malbone, 
seeing  his  deficiency  in  miniature  work,  instructed 
him  in  the  method  of  preparing  ivories  for  the 
reception  of  paint,  and  thus  enabled  him  to  im 
prove  his  pictures. 

After  spending  September  and  October  in 
Boston,  he  set  his  face  toward  Washington,  paus 
ing  to  visit  his  family  and  to  practise  his  vocation 
for  a  few  days  at  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore.  In 
Washington  he  associated  with  Samuel  Mitchill 
and  Joel  Barlow,  met  President  Jefferson  and 
Vice-President  Clinton,  and  made  a  miniature  of 
Jefferson  from  a  portrait  lent  by  Mrs.  Madison. 
He  accomplished  the  main  purpose  of  his  journey, 


84  IIEttHiam  2Dunlap 

which  was  to  learn  what  measures  to  take  in  the 
case  of  the  defaulting  marshal.  What  those  meas 
ures  were  we  do  not  know,  but  Dunlap  has  said 
that  Gallatin  put  him  at  rest  concerning  the  debt.2 

In  the  spring  of  1806  the  artist  was  back  in 
Perth  Amboy.  One  day  while  working  in  his 
mother's  garden — the  garden  he  had  planted  with 
fruit  trees  in  his  more  opulent  days — he  was  sur 
prised  by  the  sudden  appearance  of  T.  A.  Cooper. 
The  actor,  having  recently  become  lessee  of  the 
Park  Theatre,  made  Dunlap  on  the  spot  an  offer 
of  the  general  superintendency  of  his  theatrical 
concerns  at  a  liberal  salary.  The  ex-manager 
could  not  refuse  this  opportunity  of  a  steady  and 
substantial  income,  and  once  more  he  became  a 
figure  in  the  New  York  play-house.  This  offer 
must  have  been  particularly  welcome,  since  it 
proved  that  one  of  the  most  influential  of  his 
former  associates  still  had  full  confidence  in  him. 
Concerning  his  experiences  during  this  second 
connection  with  the  stage  he  has  left  very  little 
record,  but  we  learn  that  among  his  duties  were 
the  care  of  the  finances  and  the  management  of 
the  institution  in  Cooper's  absence.3 

One  of  Dunlap's  first  undertakings  after  assum 
ing  his  new  position  was  the  publication  of  his 
selected  dramas.  Pursuant  to  his  plan  for  literary 

2  For  the  foregoing  see  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  pp. 
268-71.     Unless  otherwise  stated,  my  authorities  through 
this  chapter  are  the  "Arts  of  Design"  and  the  "American 
Theatre." 

3  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  X,  p.  266;  "Arts  of  Design," 
Vol.  I,  p.  272. 


1B05  to  1B33       85 

activity,  he  issued  a  proposal  for  publishing  ten 
volumes  of  his  plays  by  subscription  at  $i  a 
volume.  The  plays  with  a  stage  career  were 
promised,  as  well  as  a  few  that  had  been  neither 
acted  nor  printed,  and  many  were  to  be  nearly  re 
written.4 

The  first  volume  of  the  "Dramatic  Works  of 
William  Dunlap"  was  printed  by  T.  and  G.  Palmer 
of  Philadelphia  in  September,  1806.  It  contained, 
as  frontispiece,  a  portrait  of  Mrs.  Wignell  (for- 

*  The  contents  were  to  be  as  follows : 

Vol.  I.  "The  Father  of  an  Only  Child,"  "Darby's  Re 
turn,"  "Lord  Leicester;  or,  The  Fatal  Deception,"  "Fon- 
tainville  Abbey." 

Vol.  II.  "The  Feudal  Baron,"  "William  Tell ;  or,  The 
Mountaineers  of  Switzerland,"  "Tell  Truth  and  Shame 
the  Devil,"  "Andre." 

Vol.  III.  "The  Knight's  Adventure;  or,  The  Man  of 
Fortitude,"  "The  Stranger,"  "Lovers'  Vows,"  "Sterne's 
Maria." 

Vol.  IV.  "Count  Benyowski,"  "The  Italian  Father," 
"False  Shame,"  "The  Force  of  Calumny." 

Vol.  V.  "The  Virgin  of  the  Sun,"  "Pizarro  in  Peru," 
"The  Stranger's  Birthday,"  "La  Perouse,"  "The  Wild 
Goose  Chace." 

Vol.  VI.  "School  for  Soldiers,"  "The  Robbery,"  "Fra 
ternal  Discord,"  "The  Knight  of  Guadalquiver." 

Vol.  VII.  "Abaellino,"  "Abbe  de  1'Epee,"  "The  Merry 
Gardener,"  "Where  Is  He?" 

Vol.  VIII.  "Peter  the  Great,"  "The  Voice  of  Nature," 
"The  Blind  Boy,"  "The  Good  Neighbor." 

Vol.  IX.  "The  Soldier  of  '76,"  "The  Glory  of  Columbia 
—Her  Yeomanry!"  "Bonaparte  in  England,"  "Indians  in 
England,"  "The  Proverb." 

Vol.  X.  "The  Wife  of  Two  Husbands,"  "Nina,"  "Lewis 
of  Monte  Blanco,"  "One  and  Twenty."  (The  last  title  is 
apparently  a  misnomer  for  "Forty  and  Twenty.") 

See  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  July  2,  1805,  a for  the 
above. 


86  J^tfliam  Duntap 

merly  Mrs.  Merry)  by  Dunlap,  and  a  preface  to 
the  series  in  which  the  author  said : 

"The  pieces  now  offered  to  be  assayed  in  the 
closet  have  already  passed  through  the  mint  of 
the  theatre,  and  received  the  stamp  of  public  ap 
probation.  This  last  trial  will  ascertain  their  value, 
by  determining  the  quantity  of  their  alloy.  .  .  . 

"Impressed  with  the  fullest  conviction  that  the 
stage  is  a  vehicle  by  which  moral  instruction  may 
be,  with  much  effect,  conveyed  to  the  inhabitants 
of  great  cities,  it  has  been  my  study,  while  writing 
plays,  to  make  Pleasure  subservient  to  the  cause 
of  Virtue.  With  these  views,  I  trust  I  have  not 
been  so  far  unsuccessful  that  any  parent  need  hesi 
tate  to  put  my  volumes  in  the  hands  of  his  child, 
or  the  most  scrupulous  reader  fear  to  meet  pas 
sages  that  would  wound  Decency,  or  suffuse  the 
cheek  of  Modesty  with  a  blush." 

In  respect  to  the  translations,  he  had  some  strong 
words  for  the  English  playwrights  who  con 
demned  German  drama  while  imitating  it. 

The  plays,  especially  "The  Father,"  were  more 
or  less  revised,  and  each  was  preceded  by  a  brief 
preface.  These  four  pieces  are  also  to  be  found 
separately,  each  with  the  date  of  1807,  and  with 
the  imprint  of  David  Longworth  of  New  York, 
but  with  the  pagination  of  the  1806  volume.  The 
explanation  seems  to  be  that  many  copies  of  the 
book  which  were  not  sold,  were  broken  up  the 
year  after  it  appeared  and  put  out  separately.  In 


2&ograj)J)p  from  1BH5  to  1B39       87 

1808  David  Longworth,  who  was  publishing  the 
"English  and  American  Stage,"  issued  other 
copies  of  Dunlap's  book  as  Volume  XXII  of  his 
series,  with  an  additional  title-page. 

The  second  volume,  which  did  not  come  out 
till  1816,  contained  "The  Voice  of  Nature," 
"Fraternal  Discord,"  "The  Italian  Father,"  and 
"The  Good  Neighbor"  instead  of  the  dramas  an 
nounced  in  the  prospectus.  It  bore  the  imprint  of 
Longworth,  and  was  formed  by  binding  together 
these  four  plays  as  already  published  individually. 
Volume  III,  which  made  its  appearance  the  same 
year,  was  constructed  similarly,  and  contained 
"The  Wife  of  Two  Husbands,"  "Abaellino," 
"Lovers'  Vows,"  and  "Peter  the  Great."  If 
further  volumes  were  issued  I  have  found  no  trace 
of  them.  The  conclusion  one  draws  from  this 
rather  complicated  publishing  game  is  that  Dun- 
lap's  plays  did  not  sell  very  briskly,  so  that  it  was 
necessary  to  present  them  in  various  forms  in 
order  to  exhaust  the  editions. 

The  New  York  theatre  seems  to  have  been  in  a 
fairly  prosperous  way  at  this  time,  for  in  1807  the 
interior  of  the  building  was  completely  remodeled 
and  its  capacity  increased  by  the  addition  of  a 
fourth  row  of  boxes,  which  brought  the  seating 
accommodations  up  to  about  twenty-two  hundred.5 

In  the  autumn  of  1808  the  Park  was  opened 
under  the  management  of  Cooper  and  a  new 
partner,  Stephen  Price,  who  was  destined  to  be- 

5  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  343-4 ;  Dunlap,  "Memoirs  of 
Cooke,"  New  York  edition,  Vol.  II,  p.  180. 


88 

come,  in  the  course  of  years,  the  leading  theatrical 
magnate  of  America.  On  him  and  Dunlap  de 
volved  much  of  the  responsibility  of  directing  the 
establishment,  since  it  was  now  Cooper's  practice 
to  perform  two  nights  each  week  in  Philadelphia. 

Boy  actors  were  at  this  period  the  popular 
novelty.  London  had  had  its  Master  Betty,  to 
gether  with  a  flock  of  imitators,  and  in  1809  New 
York  had  its  Master  Payne.  John  Howard  Payne 
was  a  youthful  prodigy  who,  at  the  age  of  sixteen, 
made  his  bow  on  the  New  York  stage  as  Young 
Norval  in  "Douglas,"  and  followed  with  several 
tragic  parts  from  Shakespeare  and  Kotzebue.  His 
acting  was  rewarded  with  unusual  applause,  and 
according  to  Dunlap  was  extremely  pleasing  and 
full  of  talent. 

In  the  spring  of  1810  Cooper  went  abroad,  to 
be  gone  for  nearly  a  year.  Under  the  direction  of 
Price  and  his  assistant  the  theatre  resumed  opera 
tions  in  the  fall,  but  the  patronage  was  very  scanty 
until  the  arrival  of  George  Frederick  Cooke  in 
November  brought  the  Park  a  period  of  the 
greatest  prosperity  it  had  ever  known.  Cooke  was 
an  English  actor  who  by  1800  had  attained  to  lead 
ing  parts  at  Covent  Garden.  He  soon  outdistanced 
all  rivals  save  John  Philip  Kemble,  but  his  per 
sistent  dissipation  and  his  moral  and  professional 
irregularities  earned  him  a  reputation  not  wholly 
enviable ;  and  when  Cooper  offered  him  a  position 
in  America  at  twenty-five  guineas  a  week,  he  ac 
cepted  without  reluctance. 

Reaching  New  York  on  November   16,   1810, 


23iograpljp  from  1B05  to  1B39       89 

Cooke  put  up  at  the  Tontine  Coffee-House,  where 
Dunlap  called  on  him  the  day  of  his  arrival,  with 
no  small  surprise  at  the  vigor  and  health  and 
gracious  address  of  a  man  who  was  reputed  to  be 
a  sot.  On  the  2ist  of  the  month  the  great  actor 
made  his  debut  in  "Richard  III"  before  a  packed 
house.  New  York  had  never  witnessed  a  tragedian 
who  could  approach  him  in  power  and  majesty, 
and  the  town  was  captivated.  On  the  third  night 
he  was  somewhat  the  worse  for  conviviality,  his 
voice  failed  him,  and  the  play  ended  in  pantomime ; 
but  the  audience  supposed  he  was  suffering  from 
a  cold.  At  his  benefit  performance  a  few  weeks 
later  he  had  even  less  command  of  himself.  The 
drama  was  "Cato,"  but  he  spouted  Shakespeare 
and  incoherencies  of  his  own  in  place  of  Addison. 
The  next  night's  receipts  fell  from  $1878  to  $467. 
But  the  average  for  this  run  of  seventeen  nights 
was  $1269,  the  like  of  which  New  York  had  never 
seen.  After  a  short  engagement  at  Boston,  Cooke 
returned  to  the  Park ;  but  curiosity  was  now  satis 
fied,  the  public  was  disgusted  with  his  conduct  in 
"Cato,"  and  the  receipts  dropped  to  an  average 
of  about  $500  a  performance. 

It  was  arranged  that  Cooke  should  go  to  Phila 
delphia,  and  Price  bestowed  upon  Dunlap  the  un 
welcome  honor  of  accompanying  him  in  the 
capacity  of  guardian,  an  office  which  he  accepted 
in  the  characteristic  hope  that  he  might  have  a 
good  influence.  On  March  18,  1811,  the  pair 
started  south.  They  stopped  for  the  night  with 
Dunlap's  family  in  Perth  Amboy,  where  Cooke 


90 

displayed  all  the  polish  and  charm  of  which  he 
was  master,  and  passed  one  of  the  most  innocent 
and  restful  nights  of  his  life.  Philadelphia  was 
the  scene  of  another  histrionic  triumph.  So  great 
was  the  demand  for  seats  that  some  ardent  souls 
remained  on  the  steps  of  the  theatre  from  Sunday 
morning  till  Monday  morning  in  order  to  be  sure 
of  obtaining  tickets.  The  average  receipts  for  this 
run  of  twenty  nights  were  over  $1100.  Cooke 
drank  plentifully  during  the  Philadelphia  engage 
ment,  but  seldom  to  the  detriment  of  his  acting, 
thanks  to  the  vigilance  of  his  guardian,  who  some 
times  drank  more  wine  than  was  agreeable  to  his 
abstemious  convictions  in  order  to  deprive  George 
Frederick  of  it.  The  lion,  on  the  whole,  seems  to 
have  been  fairly  obedient  to  his  keeper.  On  May 
i  Dunlap  departed  for  home,  leaving  affairs  in 
the  hands  of  Cooper,  who  had  just  returned  from 
abroad.6 

The  sojourn  in  Philadelphia  was  not  without 
an  element  of  sadness  because  of  the  absence  of 
Brown,  who  had  died  in  1810.  In  the  Diary  Dun- 
lap  wrote: 

"I  called  yesterday  for  the  second  time  on  the 
widow  of  my  friend,  Charles  Brockden  Brown, 
and  found  her  at  home,  and  in  company  with  his 
mother,  likewise  a  widow  since  my  last  visit  to 
this  place.  I  saw  the  twin  boys  who  used  to  be 
my  playthings.  I  took  them  on  my  knees.  I 

6  For  preceding  paragraphs  see  "Memoirs  of  Cooke." 


2&iograpl)p  from  1BH5  to  1B39       9 1 

kissed  them,  and  remembered  former  days — poor 
things!"7 

His  position  having  become  disagreeable 
through  no  fault  of  Cooper's,  Dunlap  resigned 
his  assistant  managership  toward  the  close  of 
1811,  and  withdrew  permanently  from  the  the 
atrical  business.8  This  period  of  nearly  six  years 
was  a  very  unproductive  one.  Perhaps  all  his 
time  was  occupied  with  his  duties;  at  any  rate,  he 
did  nothing  more  than  revive  a  few  of  his  old 
plays  and  write  a  song,  "The  Freedom  of  the 
Seas,"  which  was  sung  at  the  Park  on  July  4, 
1810.  The  newspaper  comment  was,  "Sung  with 
unbounded  applause."  The  song,  which  was  in 
spired  by  English  impressment  of  our  seamen, 
comprises  six  rather  spirited  stanzas,  each  ending 
with  this  refrain: 

"We'll  be  free  of  the  sea  in  despite  of  every  foe, 
Though  tyrants  frown  and  cannon  roar  and  the 
angry  tempests  blow." 

Dunlap  was  once  more  without  an  income,  and 
once  more  he  turned  to  miniature  painting.  He 
confined  himself  at  first  to  New  York,  whither  he 
removed  his  family  from  Perth  Amboy,  where  they 
had  resided  since  the  bankruptcy. 

On  June  18,  1812,  war  was  declared  on  England, 
and  the  patriotic  Dunlap  immediately  wrote  a  song, 

7  From  sketch  of  Brown  in  "National  Portrait  Gallery 
of  Distinguished  Americans."    Conducted  by  Herring  and 
Longacre.     1834-^6.    Vol.  III. 

8  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  272;  "Memoirs  of  Cooke," 
Vol.  II,  p.  354- 


92  mftlttam  SDuntap 

"Yankee  Chronology,"  which  was  sung  on  the  4th 
of  July.  It  was  soon  augmented  into  an  inter 
lude,  "Yankee  Chronology;  or,  Huzza,  for  the 
Constitution !"  and  given  a  dozen  times  during  the 
conflict  to  enthusiastic  audiences.  In  December 
he  contributed  another  war  song,  "Yankee  Tars," 
a  composition  of  ten  quatrains  boasting  of  the 
vast  superiority  of  our  naval  fighters.  During 
the  month  it  was  occasionally  sung  as  a  solo  at  the 
theatre. 

The  portrait  business  falling  off  in  consequence 
of  the  war,  the  painter  tried  to  increase  his  in 
come  by  further  literary  ventures.  Cooke,  half  in 
sport,  had  requested  him  to  write  his  biography, 
and  in  the  same  spirit  Dunlap  had  agreed  to  do  so. 
After  the  actor's  death  in  September,  1812,  the 
task  was  pressed  upon  him  by  friends,  so  that  he 
decided  to  undertake  it.9  With  the  aid  of  John 
Dunlap,  his  son,  the  work  progressed  rapidly,  and 
was  published  in  two  volumes  by  Longworth  early 
in  1813,  with  a  portrait  of  the  player  from  Dunlap's 
miniature.  A  London  edition  was  also  in  con 
templation.  On  December  30  Washington  Irving 
had  written  to  his  brother,  Peter,  in  Liverpool 
that  Dunlap  had  almost  completed  a  life  of  Cooke 
and  desired  to  send  him  a  manuscript  to  be  dis 
posed  of  in  England.  The  letter  ended,  "as  he  is 
an  old  friend  and  a  very  worthy  man,  I  make  no 
doubt  you  will  do  everything  in  your  power  to 
benefit  him." 10  The  prospects  were  good  for  some 

9  Preface  to  "Memoirs  of  Cooke." 

10  P.  M.  Irving,  "Life  and  Letters  of  Washington  Ir 
ving,"  Philadelphia,  1872,  Vol.  I,  p.  293. 


25iogcajrf)p  from  1B05  to  1B39       93 

remuneration  from  the  London  edition,  but  a 
curious  complication  destroyed  this  hope.  The 
author's  account  of  the  transaction  is  this : 

"While  I  was  in  Boston  [see  below]  I  received 
letters  from  P.  Irving,  Esq.,  informing  me  that 
he  had  agreed  with  Miller  of  London  to  publish 
my  life  of  Cooke  and  divide  the  profit;  but  be 
fore  I  left  it,  I  learned  that  John  Howard  Payne, 
having  found  a  copy  in  a  ship  from  New  York, 
with  a  view  to  serve  me,  sold  it  to  Colbourne  [sic], 
who  got  out  an  edition  before,  (or  on  the  same 
day)  with  Miller's,  and  the  two  publishers  agreed 
to  make  the  best  for  themselves,  and  sink  me."11 

The  impression,  which  this  conveys,  that  the  book 
was  actually  published  by  the  two  houses  is  er 
roneous,  I  think.  I  find  no  trace  of  an  edition  by 
Miller.  Probably  Colburn  anticipated  him  suffi 
ciently  to  quash  his  edition  altogether.  In  1815 
Colburn  reprinted  the  work,  indicating  that  it  met 
a  fair  sale  in  England,  though  the  price  was  one 
guinea. 

Another  literary  project  of  1813  was  the  found 
ing  of  a  magazine.  In  April  the  first  number  of 
the  ''Monthly  Recorder"  made  its  appearance. 
Like  various  other  enterprises  of  the  editor's,  the 
magazine  soon  began  running  him  into  debt;  so 
he  packed  up  his  painting  outfit  and  started  north 
with  the  twofold  purpose  of  making  miniatures 
and  securing  subscriptions.  He  stopped  at  Hart 
ford,  Providence,  and  Boston,  and  obtained  some 
sitters,  but  the  "Recorder"  met  no  encouragement 

11  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  273. 


94  3&iUiam  SDunlap 

and  died  for  want  of  sustenance  in  the  fifth  month 
of  its  existence.  The  five  numbers  were  later  col 
lected  in  one  volume  as  "A  Record,  Literary  and 
Political,  of  Five  Months  in  the  Year  1813.  By 
William  Dunlap  and  Others." 

On  his  return  from  Boston,  the  artist,  at  Stuart's 
suggestion,  turned  his  attention  to  oil  portraits 
and  practically  abandoned  miniatures.  Since  1805, 
when  he  entered  this  branch  of  the  profession 
ignorant  of  some  of  its  essentials,  he  had  made 
distinct  progress.  A  collection  of  sixteen  of  his 
miniatures  was  sold  at  Philadelphia  in  1905.  The 
catalogue  of  the  sale,  compiled  by  S.  V.  Henkels, 
stated  that  they  were  "executed  in  the  highest 
style  of  the  art,"  an  opinion  which  the  accompany 
ing  reproductions  confirmed.  Professor  Theodore 
S.  Woolsey  of  Yale,  who  has  given  special  atten 
tion  to  Dunlap  as  a  painter,  says :  "As  a  miniaturist 
he  excelled,  showing  charm  of  color,  accurate 
drawing,  and  considerable  power  of  characteriza 
tion."12 

Once  more  Dunlap  was  interrupted  in  the  pur 
suit  of  his  vocation.  In  1814  he  was  appointed  as 
sistant  paymaster-general  of  the  State  militia.  This 
position  involved  much  traveling  about  from  New 
York  City  to  Buffalo,  and  much  mingling  with 
many  races — Indian,  Dutch,  English,  and  Yankee. 
His  portfolio  always  accompanied  him,  and  it  was 
his  custom  to  arise  early  and  walk  several  miles 
from  head-quarters  to  make  water-color  sketches 
of  places  of  beauty  or  interest.  From  Buffalo  he 
12  "Yale  Review,"  new  series,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  779. 


2£>iograpJ)p  from  1B05  to  1B39       95 

walked  to   Niagara,   where   he  spent   four  days 
sketching  the  falls.13 

During  his  incumbency  of  this  office,  Dunlap 
found  time  for  a  certain  amount  of  writing.  In 
1814  he  did  some  hack  work  on  the  Napoleonic 
wars.14  Of  much  more  importance  was  the  "Life 
of  Charles  Brockden  Brown,"  begun  at  the  re 
quest  of  Elijah  Brown  in  1813,  published  at  Phila 
delphia  two  years  later,  and  at  London  in  1822. 
In  commemoration  of  the  last  battle  of  the 
war,  fought  on  January  8,  1815,  he  wrote  a  play, 
"The  Battle  of  New  Orleans,"  which  appears  to 
have  been  staged  July  4,  1816,  and  repeated  oc 
casionally  for  several  years  thereafter.15 


II 

THE  State  position  came  to  an  end  late  in  1816, 
and  for  the  last  time  Dunlap  returned  to  profes 
sional  painting.  Since  he  was  now  about  to  enter 
on  his  major  activities  as  an  artist,  a  few  words 

13  Professor  Woolsey  has  about  forty  of  these  water- 
colors,  including  views  of  Lake  George,  Lake  Champlain, 
Niagara,    and    Saratoga,    which    he    pronounces    "rather 
crude  representations."     See  "Yale  Review,"  new  series, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  780. 

14  See  post,  pp.  250-1. 

15  Mr.  Oscar  Wegelin,  "Early  American  Plays,"  Publica 
tions  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  second  series,  No.  10,  1900,  pp. 
39.  49,  puts  its  first  appearance  on  July  4,  1815,  and  says 
C.  E.  Grice's  "Battle  of  New  Orleans"  was  acted  a  year 
later.    There  is  no  authority  in  the  newspaper  advertise 
ments  or  in  Ireland  for  the  earlier  date,  while  all  indica 
tions  strongly  suggest  that  it  was  Dunlap's  play  which 
began  its  career  in  1816. 


96 

concerning  the  status  of  American  art  may  be  ap 
propriate.  John  Singleton  Copley,  whose  un- 
charming  but  veracious  portraits  first  gave  this 
country  some  artistic  standing  abroad,  had  died  in 
1815.  Benjamin  West  was  still  alive,  though 
seventy-eight  years  of  age.  Since  1763  he  had 
resided  in  England,  where  he  had  become  the  un 
challenged  leader  in  historical  and  allegorical 
painting.  His  studio  had  been  the  class-room  of 
American  aspirants,  and  almost  all  the  important 
painters  in  the  United  States  at  this  time  had  been 
his  pupils. 

Of  the  earlier  generation  of  West's  pupils  were 
Gilbert  Stuart  and  John  Trumbull,  whom  Dunlap 
met  in  London  in  1784.  Stuart,  who  returned  to 
his  native  land  in  1792  and  remained  until  his 
death  in  1828,  absorbed  none  of  West's  method. 
He  confined  himself  to  portraits,  which  he  exe 
cuted  in  a  sure,  fresh,  and  brilliant  manner  that 
was  all  his  own,  and  that  still  gives  him  rank 
among  our  greatest  painters.  Trumbull,  who 
finally  settled  in  New  York  in  1815,  was  greatly 
influenced  by  his  master's  historical  work,  a  de 
partment  in  which  he  likewise  achieved  prominence. 
He  also  possessed  unusual  ability  for  portraiture, 
but  in  both  branches  he  often  fell  into  mediocrity. 

Among  the  next  generation  of  those  who  studied 
in  West's  atelier  the  most  able  were  Thomas 
Sully,  Washington  Allston,  and  Samuel  F.  B. 
Morse.  Sully  spent  but  a  year  in  England,  yet 
on  his  return  in  1810  he  produced  some  good  his 
torical  canvases,  and  became  a  portraitist  second 


William  Dunlap 

From  a  rare  contemporary  lithograph 


23iograpl)p  from  1BH5  to  1B33       97 

only  to  Stuart.  Allston,  while  abroad,  painted 
numerous  imaginative  pictures  with  more  real 
character  and  harmony  than  West's.  After  his  re 
turn  in  1818,  he  was  recognized  as  the  king  of 
American  art,  though  he  did  but  little  work  from 
that  time  on.  Morse,  who  studied  under  Allston 
more  than  under  West,  came  back  to  the  United 
States  in  1815.  He  was  an  able  artist  and  painted 
various  celebrities,  but  he  gained  no  great  success, 
and  after  several  years  turned  his  attention  to 
electricity. 

John  Vanderlyn  had  the  distinction  of  being  the 
first  American  to  learn  his  craft  in  France  and  to 
acquire  French  methods  of  solidity  and  accuracy. 
He  painted  some  very  beautiful  figures  while 
abroad,  and  after  his  home-coming  in  1815,  he 
made  portraits  of  many  distinguished  citizens,  as 
well  as  several  large  show  pictures.16 

When  Dunlap  finally  took  up  his  brush  late  in 
1816,  the  United  States  possessed  a  few  highly 
gifted  artists  and  a  large  body  of  minor  painters 
of  more  or  less  ability.  The  prevailing  influence 
was  English,  and  portraiture  was  the  general  oc 
cupation,  though  historical  and  imaginative  sub 
jects  were  sometimes  attempted.  New  York  was 
now  the  art  center  of  the  country,  as  Boston  and 
Philadelphia  had  been  before. 

For  several  years  the  city  had  had  an  organiza 
tion  of  artists.  Founded  in  1801,  it  was  incor- 

16  For  preceding  paragraphs  see  "Arts  of  Design" ; 
Samuel  Isham,  "History  of  American  Painting,"  New 
York,  1905. 


98 

porated  seven  years  later  as  the  American 
Academy  of  Fine  Arts.  After  a  dormant  period, 
the  institution  was  revived  in  1816,  in  which 
resuscitation  Dunlap  had  a  hand.  In  1817  Trum- 
bull  was  elected  president  and  Dunlap  a  director. 
The  latter  was  also  made  keeper  and  librarian  at 
a  salary  of  $200,  with  a  room  for  professional 
purposes.  The  first  exhibition  ever  given  by  the 
Academy  was  held  in  1816.  The  second  took  place 
the  next  year,  and  to  it  Dunlap  contributed  three 
pictures:  "A  Portrait  of  a  Lady,"  "Mary  Mag 
dalen,"  and  "Christ  on  the  Mount  of  Olives."17 

In  his  new  quarters  Dunlap  painted  an  en 
couraging  number  of  portraits  for  a  couple  of 
years,18  but  in  1819  his  business  fell  off,  and  in  the 
fall  he  resolved  to  try  his  fortunes  in  Virginia. 
After  stopping  a  day  or  two  with  Sully  in  Phila 
delphia,  he  reached  Norfolk  on  October  23,  and 
there  he  remained  till  spring. 

The  third  available  volume  of  the  Diary  covers 
the  Norfolk  residence,  and  gives  an  interesting 
picture  of  Dunlap  as  an  artist.  I  shall  select  a 
few  details.  His  first  customer  was  the  host  of 
his  hotel,  who  ordered  portraits  of  his  two 
daughters  at  $25  each.  Soon  the  commissions  be 
gan  coming  in  sufficient  numbers  to  justify  him 
in  fitting  up  a  painting  and  exhibition  room.  Here 
he  was  visited  by  many  people  who  seemed  to  find 

17  "American  Monthly  Magazine,"  Vol.  I,  p.  199. 

18  A  family  event  of  1818  was  the  death  of  the  artist's 
mother  on  the  27th  of  December  at  the  age  of  eighty-five 
years.     (Dunlap  family  Bible.) 


1BH5  to  1B39       99 

his  studio  a  place  of  pleasant  diversion;  among 
his  visitors  he  noted  in  particular  numerous 
beautiful  women  and  a  band  of  Indians.  His 
orders  kept  him  steadily  busy  and  brought  in 
comfortable  returns,  although  one  patron  paid 
with  hams  and  other  produce,  and  a  second  with 
lottery  tickets  which  drew  blanks.  Southern 
hospitality  was  a  source  of  much  pleasure  to  him ; 
he  found  the  food  to  his  taste,  except  for  the 
butter.  He  was  sound  in  body  and  cheerful  in 
mind.  On  December  2.  he  wrote : 

"Tomorrow  will  be  seven  weeks  since  I  left 
home  &  six  since  I  arrived  in  Norfolk — I  have 
enjoyed  good  health — I  have  had  my  mind  whole 
somely  employed  generally,  and  I  believe  more 
uniformly  so  than  for  a  long  time  before  I  left 
home.  I  have  drank  no  wine  &  no  spirits  in 
any  shape  except  a  very  moderate  portion  with 
my  dinner — I  have  been  better  in  mind  &  body 
than  when  I  took  wine  at  my  dinner.  I  think  I 
have  improved  in  my  painting— I  have  more  con 
fidence  in  my  powers,  more  facility  a  better  style 
generally— I  have  begun  Eleven  portraits  amount 
ing  to  $315.  .  .  .  For  all  this  and  much  much 
more,  I  thank  my  Creator  &  incomprehensibly 
great  &  good  Benefactor."19 

In  his  leisure  he  frequented  the  theatre,  made 
free  to  him  by  the  manager,  went  to  church,  wrote 
often  to  his  wife  and  son,  and  read  largely  as 
always.  Among  the  books  read  were  Rousseau's 
«  Diary,  Vol.  XXIV,  pp.  54-5. 


TOO  JDiiiiam  SDunlap 

"Confessions"  (in  French),  "Ferdinand  Count 
Fathom,"  "Humphrey  Clinker,"  "Tom  Jones," 
"Ivanhoe,"  "Don  Juan,"  and  the  Bible  with 
Clarke's  commentary. 

From  his  remarks  on  the  Bible  reading  it  is 
evident  that  Dunlap  had  undergone  a  change  of 
heart  since  the  days  of  Godwinian  heresy.  He  had 
given  up  his  radicalism  as  had  Brown  several 
years  before  his  death.  Dr.  Clarke's  biblical 
criticism,  which  gave  various  translations  for  the 
same  passage,  he  felt  to  be  dangerous  because  it 
tended  to  unsettle  belief  and  to  raise  doubt  as  to 
the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures. 

On  the  24th  of  April  he  left  Norfolk  after  a 
residence  of  twenty-six  weeks  during  which  he  had 
painted  at  least  thirty-six  portraits,  including  a  few 
miniatures,— a  very  good  rate  of  production.  He 
had  received  about  $1100  in  all,  yet  he  complained 
that  he  would  reach  New  York  almost  as  poor  as 
he  left  it,  because  of  large  expenses.  However,  he 
consoled  himself  with  the  assurance  that  he  had 
supported  his  family  and  opened  a  source  of  in 
come  for  the  future.20 

Dunlap  now  tried  to  pursue  his  vocation  in  New 
York,  but  with  no  success;  so  he  determined  on 
Lower  Canada,  whither  he  departed  in  August, 
1820.  At  Montreal  he  found  employment  for 
two  months,  and  then  moved  on  to  Quebec  for  a 

20  Owing  to  his  absence  from  New  York,  Dunlap  re 
signed  as  keeper  and  librarian  of  the  Academy.  At  the 
January  election  he  was  reflected  a  director,  as  he  had 
been  each  year  since  1817.  This  was  his  final  term. 


1  Bfl5f  to  1 B33     i  o  i 

week  or  two.  Here  he  did  not  fail  to  make  an 
excursion  to  the  Plains  of  Abraham,  on  which  his 
father  had  fought.  His  prosperity  in  the  north 
was  not  great  and  his  estimate  of  the  Canadians 
not  high;  he  found  them  cold  and  cautious  in 
contrast  with  the  warm  Virginians.  But  he  seems 
to  have  created  a  favorable  impression  at  Montreal, 
for  one  of  the  newspapers  spoke  of  him  as  a  highly 
cultivated  gentleman,  and  compared  him  with 
West,  Reynolds,  and  Rubens ! 

Norfolk  was  again  to  be  Dunlap's  winter  abode. 
He  arrived  late  in  November,  accompanied  by  his 
wife,  and  opened  an  exhibition  room  adorned  with 
about  sixty  pictures  of  his  own.  Again  he  painted 
a  goodly  number  of  portraits,  and  returned  home 
in  June,  1821. 

The  exhibition  of  large  paintings  was  one  of 
the  commercial  enterprises  of  the  time,  and  Dun- 
lap,  in  the  hope  of  swelling  his  slender  income, 
set  about  producing  a  show  picture.  For  ma 
terial  he  instinctively  turned  to  his  master,  West, 
and  chose  the  rejection  of  Christ.  He  had  never 
seen  West's  painting  of  this  name,  but  he  had 
read  the  artist's  description  of  it,  and  had  seen 
engravings  of  the  separate  groups.  On  this  basis, 
with  the  aid  of  the  scriptural  account,  Dunlap  com 
posed  his  picture.  Before  leaving  Norfolk  he  had 
made  a  small  sketch,  30  by  36  inches.  On  his  re 
turn  to  New  York  he  procured  a  canvas  12  by  18 
feet,  placed  it,  in  the  absence  of  a  better  studio, 
in  the  attic  of  his  house,  and  went  to  work.  All 
summer  he  toiled  in  the  heat  and  bad  light  of  his 


102  JMliam  SDunlap 

stuffy  garret,  and  in  spite  of  adverse  conditions 
the  result  was  very  gratifying  to  him.  In  No 
vember  he  took  his  canvas  to  Norfolk,  wher,e  he 
continued  to  work  at  it  when  not  engaged  on 
portraits.  "Christ  Rejected"  was  finished  in 
March,  1822,  and  placed  on  exhibition.  Dunlap 
printed  a  pamphlet  containing  West's  description. 
He  expressed  his  obligation  to  that  painter's  treat 
ment  of  the  subject,  but  asserted  that  the  com 
position,  coloring,  and  principal  figures  were  en 
tirely  his  own.  The  picture  represented  Christ, 
bound  and  wearing  the  crown  of  thorns,  standing 
before  Pilate,  while  the  populace  demand  his 
crucifixion.  In  June  Dunlap  moved  his  painting 
from  Norfolk  to  Philadelphia.  He  was  pleased 
with  its  impression  on  the  public,  and  surprised  at 
its  excellence  when  shown  to  advantage.  In  July 
he  took  it  to  Boston  and  Portland,  at  the  latter 
town  receiving  from  $200  to  $300  in  two  weeks; 
then  he  sent  it  on  tour  about  the  East  in  care  of  an 
attendant.  Subsequently  it  was  exhibited  with 
some  profit  in  many  parts  of  the  United  States, 
getting  as  far  west  as  Urbana,  Ohio. 

During  the  winter  of  1822-3  Dunlap  remained 
in  New  York,  but  received  few  commissions  be 
cause,  as  he  frankly  admitted,  there  were  better 
painters  in  the  market.  He  busied  himself,  how 
ever,  making  a  preliminary  sketch  for  another 
large  picture.  The  spring  and  summer  found  him 
in  Utica  and  Saratoga,  painting  portraits  and  ex 
hibiting. 

In  the  winter  of  1823-4  he  obtained  a  big  cloth, 


2&iograjtf)p  from  iafl5  to  1B39     103 

nailed  it  to  the  floor  of  his  attic,  and  applied  white 
lead.  On  this  improvised  canvas  he  began  to  paint 
"The  Bearing  of  the  Cross"  from  the  sketch  made 
the  previous  year.  Christ  was  portrayed  sinking 
under  his  burden  on  the  road  to  Calvary.  This 
picture  was  also  sent  on  tour,  but  with  less  satis 
factory  results  than  in  the  former  case.  During 
the  winter  the  artist  became  a  member  of  the 
Lunch  Club,  with  which  J.  F.  Cooper,  Halleck, 
Bryant,  Morse,  Bleecker,  and  Brevoort  were 
affiliated. 

In  November,  1824,  Dunlap  was  astonished  by  a 
summons  to  Washington  on  a  charge  of  having 
defaulted  as  assistant  paymaster  to  the  extent  of 
several  thousand  dollars.  Investigation,  however, 
brought  the  deficiency  down  to  one  dollar,  and 
that  was  found  to  have  arisen  from  an  error  in 
addition. 

The  production  of  other  large  pictures  continued 
to  occupy  our  artist.  Early  in  1825  he  began  a 
representation  of  Christ  on  Calvary,  a  subject 
which  West  had  treated.  As  usual,  he  first  made 
a  cartoon,  25  by  30  inches,  and  sketched  separate 
studies  from  life  for  the  principal  groups.  Before 
this  painting  was  completed,  he  commenced  and 
finished  another  in  imitation  of  West's  "Death  on 
the  Pale  Horse,"  of  which  he  had  obtained  an 
etching  and  a  printed  description.  Dunlap's  picture 
was  completed  in  less  than  three  months.  It  il 
lustrated  St.  John's  vision  of  the  opening  of  the 
first  four  seals  as  recorded  in  Revelation,  Chapter 
VI.  In  the  center,  Death,  seated  on  a  pale  horse 


1 04  JDilltam  Dunlap 

and  followed  by  the  ministers  of  Hell,  was  seen 
rushing  forward  over  the  bodies  of  his  victims. 
He  was  accompanied  by  three  other  mounted 
figures,  symbolizing  the  Gospel,  the  wars  which 
spread  the  Gospel,  and  the  Judgment.  At  one 
side  a  group  of  beasts  were  engaged  in  the  destruc 
tion  of  man.  This  canvas  was  successfully  shown 
at  the  American  Academy  for  three  months,  and 
later  sent  on  the  road  to  the  profit  of  its  owner 
and  the  intense  admiration  of  the  people,  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  poems  and  press  notices  it  in 
spired.  "Terrible  sublimity,"  "by  one  of  the  most 
eminent  artists  of  the  age,"  "a  fearful  representa 
tion,"  "the  greatest  painting  yet,"  were  some  of 
the  extravagant  terms  employed.  The  picture  was 
sold  in  1833  for  $500  and  continued  its  itinerancy 
until  1840  at  least.21 

While  Dunlap  was  busy  in  the  painting  of  his 
torical  canvases,  civil  war  had  developed  within 
the  artistic  fraternity  of  New  York.  The  Amer 
ican  Academy  was  an  academy  in  name  only.  No 
school  of  instruction  was  maintained,  and  the  young 
artists  who  attempted  to  use  the  privilege  of  draw 
ing  from  the  Academy's  casts  were  subjected 
to  discourteous  treatment,— a  policy  dictated,  so 
there  was  reason  to  believe,  by  President  Trum- 
bull.  Membership  in  the  organization  was  open  to 
all  on  payment  of  $25,  and  of  the  eleven  directors, 
only  three  could  be  artists.  Thus  the  city  was 

21  Descriptive  pamphlet,  Boston,  1840;  "New  York  Eve 
ning  Post,"  October  28,  1825,  and  following  issues ;  Diary, 
Vol.  XXX,  p.  50. 


23iograpljp  from  1B05  to  1B30      105 

treated  to  the  curious  spectacle  of  an  art  associa 
tion  run  by  lawyers  and  shopkeepers.  Naturally 
the  artists  felt  this  an  insult  to  their  intelligence 
and  a  curtailment  of  their  liberty,  as  well  as  a 
hindrance  to  the  progress  of  American  art. 

In  1825,  at  the  suggestion  of  Morse,  the  New 
York  Drawing  Association,  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  native  art  and  assisting  students,  was 
formed  with  Dunlap  as  one  of  the  members.  The 
association  met  three  evenings  a  week  to  draw. 
One  night  Trumbull  stalked  in  with  the  matricula 
tion  book  of  the  Academy  under  his  arm,  which 
he  demanded  that  they  sign.  They  refused,  but 
offered  to  unite  with  the  older  institution  if  six 
artists  were  elected  to  the  board  of  directors.  At 
the  request  of  the  Academy,  the  Drawing  Associa 
tion  chose  six  of  its  members,  one  of  whom  was 
Dunlap,  with  the  understanding  that  they  would 
be  placed  on  the  board.  Four  of  them  not  being 
Academicians,  $100  was  put  up  to  render  them 
eligible.  But  only  two  of  the  six  were  elected, 
and  they  immediately  resigned.  The  Academy, 
however,  retained  the  $100. 

Thus  betrayed,  the  Drawing  Association  re 
solved  to  exist  independently,  and  early  in  1826 
organized  itself  into  the  National  Academy  of  De 
sign.  The  membership  included  Morse,  Dunlap, 
Inman,  Peale,  Ingham,  Cole,  and  Durand.  Morse 
was  elected  president,  two  lecturing  professors 
were  appointed,  and  an  exhibition  was  immediately 
projected,  with  Dunlap  as  treasurer  and  a  member 
of  the  committee  on  arrangements.  The  first 


1 06  J©tiliam  SDuniap 

picture  display,  consisting  of  one  hundred  and 
seventy  entries  (eleven  of  them  were  Dunlap's), 
was  held  in  the  second  story  of  an  ordinary  dwell 
ing-house  at  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Reade 
Street. 

At  the  start  the  National  encountered  much  op 
position  and  enmity  from  the  American  Academy, 
and  a  great  deal  of  recrimination  was  indulged  in 
on  both  sides,  in  which  Dunlap's  pen  was  not  idle. 
But  in  a  few  years  the  new  association  was  beyond 
the  fear  of  hostility,  while  the  American  was 
slowly  dying.22 

For  the  next  year  or  two  we  find  Dunlap  paint 
ing  portraits  at  New  York  and  elsewhere,  working 
on  his  "Calvary,"  and  exhibiting  his  three  large 
pictures  about  the  country  with  varying  success. 
Now  they  were  the  inspiration  of  sermons;  now 
they  were  condemned  by  the  pulpit,  and  the  agent 
was  seized  for  violating  the  law  against  puppet 
shows. 

In  1827  the  artist  once  more  turned  to  dramatic 
writing.  The  Bowery  Theatre,  a  sumptuous  new 
house,  which  had  been  opened  in  the  fall  of  i826,23 
contracted  with  him  to  provide  stage  material 
which  might  parallel  and  compete  with  that  of  its 
rival,  the  Park.  At  the  latter,  Fitzball's  "Flying 
Dutchman"  was  making  a  great  run.  Late  in 

22  See  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  II,  Chapter  XXI;  T.  S. 
Cummings,  "Historical  Annals  of  the  National  Academy 
of  Design,"  Philadelphia,  1865. 

23  Ireland,  Vol.  I,  pp.  521-2.    The  capacity  of  the  theatre 
was  about  3000.     It  contained  the  first  gas-lighted  stage 
in  America. 


from  1B05  to  1B39      107 

May  the  Bowery,  after  considerable  horn-blow 
ing,  came  out  with  a  play  of  the  same  name  and 
with  the  same  dramatis  persona,  which  proved  its 
mainstay  during  the  spring  and  summer.  Dunlap 
undoubtedly  had  a  hand  in  the  piece,  though  prob 
ably  he  did  nothing  more  than  revise  Fitzball.24 

In  February,  1828,  "Thirty  Years;  or,  The  Life 
of  a  Gamester,"  translated  from  the  French,  was 
presented  at  the  Bowery  in  opposition  to  "The 
Gambler's  Fate,"  a  British  translation  which  was 
being  featured  at  the  Park.  The  American  ver 
sion  found  favor,  and  was  repeated  more  than  a 
dozen  times  in  the  course  of  the  year. 

Dunlap's  final  play,  "A  Trip  to  Niagara;  or, 
Travellers  in  America,"  was  brought  out  at  the 
Bowery  on  November  28,  1828.  It  was  a  farce, 
written  to  exploit  a  new  scenic  device  called  the 
Eidophusicon  or  Moving  Diorama,  by  which  a 
series  of  scenes  could  be  displayed  in  rapid  suc 
cession,  so  as  to  produce  the  illusion  of  actually 
passing  the  objects  represented.  The  Diorama 
was  already  in  use  at  the  Park  in  connection  with 
Moncrieff's  "London  and  Paris,"  but  the  Bowery 
threw  its  rival  into  the  shade  by  the  size  and 
magnificence  of  the  spectacle  involved  in  "A  Trip 
to  Niagara."  A  panorama  of  the  Hudson  River 
was  shown,  composed  of  eighteen  faithful  repro 
ductions,  painted  on  the  spot  by  competent  artists, 

24  I  base  the  assumption  of  Dunlap's  responsibility  on 
the  fact  that  he  included  a  play  of  this  name  in  his 
bibliography,  and  that  the  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  X, 
p.  266,  named  "The  Flying  Dutchman"  among  his  plays 
written  for  the  Bowery. 


1 08  UMliam  2Dunlaj) 

and  so  arranged  as  to  pass  before  the  eye  much 
as  though  the  spectator  were  in  reality  steaming 
up  the  river.  After  exhausting  the  glories  of  the 
Hudson,  the  Diorama  followed  the  slender  thread 
of  the  plot  across  the  State,  and  ended  with  a  "sub 
lime"  view  of  Niagara  Falls.  The  entire  series  em 
ployed  the  unprecedented  canvas  area  of  25,000 
square  feet,  so  it  was  said.  Of  course  the  play, 
with  this  gorgeous  attraction,  was  a  smashing  suc 
cess  until  the  novelty-loving  New  Yorkers  de 
manded  some  other  curiosity.  It  was  given  fifteen 
times  the  first  month,  a  record  which  not  even 
Kotzebue  in  his  palmiest  days  could  approach ;  but 
after  nine  or  ten  performances  during  the  next 
three  months  it  disappeared.25 

Meanwhile  "Calvary,"  the  painting  on  which 
Dunlap  had  labored  for  three  years,  and  which  he 
considered  his  masterpiece,  was  completed  and 
shown  at  New  York  in  May,  1828.  It  depicted  the 
preparations  for  the  sacrifice  the  moment  before 
the  crucifixion.  In  August  a  Dunlap  gallery,  con 
taining  "Calvary,"  "Christ  Rejected,"  "Death  on 
the  Pale  Horse,"  and  several  smaller  pictures,  was 
opened  at  the  National  Academy.26  But  this  ex 
hibition  did  not  prove  profitable,  and  the  new 
painting  was  sent  on  tour.  It  met  much  hearty 
praise  for  its  energy,  its  harmony  of  color,  and  its 
moral  effect;  but  more  than  once  it  was  criticized 

25  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  November  28,  1828,  and 
following  issues;  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  159, 
171. 

26  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  August  8,  1828. 


25iosraj)l)p  from  1B05  to  1B3H      109 

for  the  comparative  obscurity  of  Christ.  The  eye 
was  first  attracted  by  the  various  groups,  it  was 
stated,  and  thus  the  picture  failed  to  create  an  im 
pression  of  epic  unity.27 

The  artist's  income,  never  large,  had  fallen  to 
a  very  low  figure  at  this  period.  His  portrait  com 
missions  were  few,  the  returns  from  the  show 
pictures  were  slight,  and  for  the  Bowery  plays  he 
received,  as  he  said,  "meagre  compensation  for 
poor  commodities."  In  the  hope  of  remuneration 
he  began  the  "History  of  the  American  Theatre." 

About  this  time  he  became  a  member  of  one  of 
the  leading  social  organizations  of  the  city,  the 
Sketch  Club,  composed  of  artists  and  literary  men, 
who  met  to  draw  and  discuss  art.  Dunlap's  un 
usual  club  record,  comprising  the  most  reputable 
societies  of  his  day,  is  proof  of  his  powers  of 
friendship  and  the  attractiveness  of  his  personality. 

Resolving  to  tempt  fortune  in  a  new  field,  our 
itinerant  went  to  Vermont  in  the  summer  of  1829, 
where  he  painted  portraits  to  some  profit  and  en 
joyed  the  hospitality  of  the  people.  Thither  he 
returned  at  intervals  to  paint  and  exhibit. 

The  National  Academy  was  growing  comfort 
ably,  the  number  of  students  was  increasing,  and 
more  instructors  were  required.  Accordingly  in 
March,  1830,  Dunlap  was  appointed  Lecturer  on 
Historic  Painting,  and  in  1832  was  made  Professor 
of  that  subject,  in  which  office  he  continued  until 
1839.  Among  his  colleagues  was  Bryant,  Pro- 

27  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  V,  p.  359;  "American 
Monthly  Magazine,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  263-4. 


J 


1 1  o  IDil  I  iam  Dunlap 

fessor  of  Mythology  and  Ancient  History.28  But 
the  position  carried  no  salary,  and  the  painter  was 
still  sorely  straitened. 

Sometime  in  the  spring  of  1830  he  gained  a  little 
relief  in  a  very  pleasing  manner.  He  received  an 
anonymous  letter  containing  $100,  which  pur 
ported  to  come  from  Brown  and  other  friends  in 
the  Elysian  Fields,  who,  having  found  the  bill 
floating  about  in  that  region  where  all  things  are 
to  be  had  without  money  and  without  price,  had 
sent  it  to  one  who  could  put  it  to  good  use.  The 
recipient  never  discovered  his  benefactor. 

The  following  August  was  spent  near  Lake 
Champlain  in  the  pursuit  of  his  profession.  While 
there  he  suffered  a  severe  attack  from  an  ailment 
which  he  designated  merely  as  his  chronic  disease. 
For  sixteen  days  he  lay  abed  in  grave  danger,  but 
he  recovered  and  finished  his  portraits  before  re 
turning  home. 

The  address  to  the  students  of  the  Academy  at 
the  awarding  of  premiums  in  April,  1831,  was  de 
livered  by  Dunlap.  He  laid  especial  stress  on  the 
necessity  for  freedom  and  independence  in  an 
artist's  activities.  Patronage  he  declared  to  be 
obnoxious  to  a  republican.  Against  the  principle 
of  patronage  and  protection,  on  which  the  Amer 
ican  Academy  was  built,  the  founders  of  the 
National  had  rebelled.  The  address  was  not  a 
particularly  creditable  effort ;  it  was  rambling  and 
unnecessarily  hostile  toward  the  rival  institution. 

28  Catalogues  of  the  exhibitions  of  the  National  Acad 
emy  of  Design;  Cummings,  p.  118. 


from  1BH5  to  1B39     1 1 1 

At  the  annual  election  of  the  National  Academy 
in  May,  1831,  Dunlap  was  made  vice-president. 
This  office  was  equivalent  to  a  temporary  presi 
dency  since  President  Morse  was  absent  in  Europe. 
Another  show  picture  was  hastily  turned  out  this 
year,  "The  Attack  on  the  Louvre,"  an  episode  in 
the  revolution  of  1830.  It  was  pronounced  a 
spirited  and  vivid  canvas,  but  it  failed  on  the 
road.29 

The  artist's  finances  remaining  in  a  gloomy  con 
dition,  he  cast  about  for  some  means  of  relief. 
Two  lectures  on  art  which  he  delivered  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Mercantile  Library  Association  gave 
him  the  idea  of  placing  his  more  important  paint 
ings  in  a  room  and  lecturing  on  them.  For  this 
purpose  the  gallery  of  the  National  Academy, 
now  located  in  Clinton  Hall,  was  secured,  and  the 
historical  pictures  were  put  on  display.  The  four 
biblical  subjects,  "Christ  Rejected,"  "The  Bear 
ing  of  the  Cross,"  "Calvary,"  and  "Death  on  the 
Pale  Horse,"  were  arranged  in  a  semi-circle  to  pro 
duce  a  progressive  panorama,— a  series  containing 
seven  or  eight  hundred  figures  and  nearly  a  thou 
sand  square  feet  of  canvas.  The  doors  were 
opened  in  February,  1832,  and  the  public  was 
urged  by  various  periodicals  to  attend  in  large 
numbers  in  order  to  relieve  the  distress  of  the 
worthy  artist.  Two  or  three  evenings  each  week 
Dunlap  lectured  on  his  works,  a  feature  which 
grew  in  popularity  until  the  gallery  was  filled 

29  Cummings,  p.  122;  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  VIII, 
p.  294;  Vol.  IX,  p.  254. 


1 1 2  Jtetfliam  SDunlap 

every  evening  it  was  open.  The  conclusion  of 
one  of  these  addresses  is  interesting  for  the  per 
sonal  note  it  struck.  After  describing  "Christ  Re 
jected"  the  speaker  said : 

"Such  appears  [sic]  to  have  been  the  events 
which  imagination  had  presented  to  the  painter's 
eye,  which,  like  the  poet's,  ought  to  glance  from 
heaven  to  earth— from  earth  to  heaven;  but  is  too 
often  chained  by  circumstances  to  a  lot  and 
thoughts  very  far  below  the  exalted  sphere  to 
which  he  aspires.  His  ardent  fancy  shows  him 
these  scenes  of  interest  and  of  glory ;  but  he  has  to 
labor  often  in  poverty,  and  disappointment,  and 
neglect,  while  striving  to  fix  them  on  his  canvas." 

In  the  spring  this  exhibition  was  moved  to  a 
museum  at  the  corner  of  Broadway  and  Anthony 
Street,  but  here  it  was  a  total  failure  because  of  an 
epidemic  of  Asiatic  cholera.30 

The  year  1832  was  an  important  one  in  Dunlap's 
literary  life  inasmuch  as  it  saw  the  publication  of 
his  "History  of  the  American  Theatre."  It  was 
dedicated  to  his  friend,  James  Fenimore  Cooper. 
It  came  from  the  Harpers'  press  about  the  first  of 
November,  and  since  it  was  issued  by  subscription, 
the  author  was  at  least  insured  against  loss.  In 
1833  it  was  printed  by  Bentley  of  London  in  two 
volumes.31  From  the  English  and  American  edi- 

30  See  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  IX,  pp.  254,  299,  310; 
"New  York  Evening  Post,"  June  25,  1832;  "Arts  of  De 
sign,"  Vol.  I,  p.  309. 

31  This  edition  is  sometimes  found  in  one  volume  with 
a  new  title-page  and  a  frontispiece  by  Cruikshank. 


Townsend  Harris's  Receipt  from  William  Dunlap 

for  his  copy  of  the 
"  History  of  the  American  Theatre" 


25iograpl)p  from  1BH5  to  1B39      1 1 3 

tions  the  writer  eventually  gained  some  re 
muneration. 

One  of  the  most  pleasant  passages  in  Dunlap's 
biography,  and  one  which  testifies  to  the  regard  in 
which  he  was  held  by  his  fellow  townsmen,  be 
longs  to  the  year  1833.  A  group  of  citizens  re 
solved  to  aid  the  veteran  dramatist  and  painter, 
who  was  now  contending  against  ill-health  as  well 
as  poverty.  They  decided  upon  a  theatrical  bene 
fit,  which  should  also  serve  as  evidence  of  their 
appreciation  of  his  long  devotion  to  letters  and 
art.  A  committee  of  one  hundred  prominent  men, 
including  Paulding  and  Bryant,  arranged  a  per 
formance  for  February  28  at  the  Park  Theatre. 
The  leading  players  of  New  York  were  enlisted, 
and  in  addition  Charles  and  Fanny  Kemble,  who 
were  then  visiting  this  country,  and  Edwin  For 
rest,  who  came  from  Philadelphia  for  the  oc 
casion.  The  principal  actors  contributed  their 
services,  the  entire  Bowery  company  was  offered 
unsolicited,  and  Charles  Kemble,  who  was  to 
receive  $400  for  himself  and  his  daughter,  turned 
over  the  whole  sum  to  Dunlap. 

The  program  consisted  of  "Venice  Preserved" 
with  Forrest  and  Kemble  in  the  major  parts,  a 
poetical  address,  several  solos,  vocal  and  instru 
mental,  and  Dunlap's  farce,  "Bonaparte  in  Eng 
land."  Halleck  and  Bryant  in  turn  had  been  asked 
to  write  the  poetical  address,  but  both,  while  ex 
pressing  the  highest  regard  for  Dunlap,  declined 
because  of  the  press  of  other  duties.  George  P. 
Morris  then  accepted  the  responsibility  and  wrote 
a  graceful  composition,  of  which  I  quote  a  part : 


ii4  HMHtam  SPunlap 

''What  gay  assemblage  greets  my  wondering  sight ! 
What  scenes  of  splendor— conjured  here  to-night ! 
What  voices  murmur,  and  what  glances  gleam ! 
Sure  'tis  some  flattering,  unsubstantial  dream. 
The  house  is  crowded— everybody's  here 
For  beauty  famous,  or  to  science  dear ; 
Doctors  and  lawyers,  judges,  belles  and  beaux, 
Poets  and  painters— and  heaven  only  knows 
Whom  else  beside— and,  see,  gay  ladies  sit, 
Lighting  with  smiles  that  fearful  place,  the  pit— 
(A  fairy  change— ah,  pray  continue  it.) 
Gray  heads  are  here  too,  listening  to  my  rhymes, 
Full  of  the  spirit  of  departed  times; 
Grave  men  and  studious,  strangers  to  my  sight, 
All  gather  round  me  on  this  brilliant  night. 
And  welcome  are  ye  all.    Not  now  ye  come 
To  speak  some  trembling  poet's  awful  doom; 
With  frowning  eyes  a  'want  of  mind'  to  trace 
In  some  new  actor's  inexperienced  face, 
Or  e'en  us  old  ones  (oh,  for  shame !)  to  rate 
'With  study  good — in  time — but — never  great/ 

A  nobler  motive  fills  your  bosoms  now, 

To  wreathe  the  laurel  round  the  silver'd  brow 

Of  one  who  merits  it— if  any  can, 

The  artist,  author,  and  the  honest  man. 

With  equal  charms  his  pen  and  pencil  drew 

Rich  scenes,  to  nature  and  to  virtue  true. 

Full  oft  upon  these  boards  hath  youth  appear'd, 

And    oft    these    smiles    his    faltering    footsteps 

cheer'd ; 
But  not  alone  on  budding  genius  smile, 


from  1BH5  to  1B3H     1 1 5 

Leaving  the  ripen'd  sheaf  unown'd  the  while; 
To  boyish  hope  not  every  bounty  give, 
And  only  youth  and  beauty  bid  to  live. 
Will  you  forget  the  services  long  past, 
Turn  the  old  war-horse  out  to  die  at  last? 
When,  his  proud  strength  and  noble  fleetness  o'er, 
His  faithful  bosom  dares  the  charge  no  more  ? 
Ah,  no— the  sun  that  loves  his  beams  to  shed 
Round  every  opening  flow'ret's  tender  head, 
With  smiles  as  kind  his  genial  radiance  throws 
To  cheer  the  sadness  of  the  fading  rose : 
Thus  he,  whose  merit  claims  this  dazzling  crowd, 
Points  to  the  past,  and  has  his  claims  allowed ; 
Looks  brightly  forth,  his  faithful  journey  done, 
And  rests  in  triumph — like  the  setting  sun." 

A  large  audience,  not  unlike  that  described  by 
Morris,  attended  in  spite  of  a  severe  snow-storm. 
The  admission  was  $3  to  the  boxes  and  pit  (the 
latter  was  arranged  for  the  accommodation  of 
ladies),  and  $i  to  the  gallery.  The  total  receipts 
were  $3194.50,  and  after  deducting  expenses  the 
committee  handed  Dunlap  $2517.54.  The  letter  of 
notification  read  as  follows: 

New  York,  March  5,  1833. 
Dear  Sir, 

It  has  become  my  pleasing  duty,  as  chairman  of 
the  committee  appointed  by  the  citizens  of  New 
York,  who  were  convened  to  express  their  deep 
sense  of  the  services  rendered  by  you  to  the  pro 
motion  of  the  Fine  Arts,  and  to  the  dramatic  lit- 


1 1 6  l©iHiam  Dunlap 

erature  of  our  country,  to  inform  you,  that  a  bene 
fit  has  been  appropriated,  in  which  many  of  your 
fellow  citizens  have  had  an  opportunity  of  ex 
pressing  their  estimate  of  those  services,  and  of 
bearing  their  testimony  to  your  character  as  a 
private  citizen :  for  the  proceeds  I  refer  you  to  the 
Hon.  William  T.  McCoun,  the  treasurer.  Allow 
me,  in  the  name  of  the  committee,  to  congratulate 
you  upon  the  success  that  has  attended  their 
efforts,  and  to  add  their  fervent  wishes  that  the 
evening  of  your  life  may  be  as  happy,  as  the  former 
part  of  it  has  been  usefully  and  honorably  em 
ployed,  in  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of  virtue 
and  of  literature. 

Accept,  dear  sir,  the  expression  of  my  personal 
regard  and  respect. 

DAVID  HOSACK,  Chairman. 

To  William  Dunlap,  Esq. 

Dunlap's  reply  was  this: 

New  York,  March  5,  1833. 
Dear  Sir, 

It  is  with  great  pleasure  I  acknowledge  the  re 
ceipt  of  your  letter  of  this  morning,  from  the 
hands  of  my  meritorious  young  friend,  William 
Sidney  McCoun. 

Of  the  many  gratifying  testimonials  connected 
with  the  event  you  allude  to  which  I  have  received, 
evincing  the  good  opinion  of  my  fellow  citizens, 
none  will  be  valued  more  highly  by  me  than  the 
approbation  of  my  conduct  through  life,  mani- 


from  1B05  to  1B33      1 1 7 

fested  by  the  large  and  highly  respectable  com 
mittee  appointed  by  the  citizens  of  New  York, 
who  were  convened  to  express  their  appreciation 
of  the  services  I  had  rendered  to  the  fine  arts  and 
dramatic  literature  of  our  country. 

I  must  beg  you,  sir,  to  find  language  wherewith 
to  communicate  my  heartfelt  thanks  for  the  honor 
the  committee  have  done  me.  I  cannot  find  words 
to  express  my  sense  of  the  feeling  shown  towards 
me.  For  yourself,  dear  sir,  accept  my  thanks  and 
best  wishes  for  your  future  welfare. 

WILLIAM  DUNLAP. 

Dr.  David  Hosack,  Chairman.32 


Ill 

THE  last  accessible  volume  of  the  Diary  extends 
from  June  27,  1833,  to  December  31,  1834,  and 
gives  much  information  concerning  Dunlap's 
labors  and  tribulations  at  this  time.  We  find  him 
this  spring  and  summer  working  on  the  "History 
of  the  Arts  of  Design,"  a  book  which  his  friends 
at  the  National  Academy  had  urged  him  to  write 
as  a  financial  aid.33  He  was  also  preparing  some 
biographies  for  Herring  and  Longacre's  "National 
Portrait  Gallery."  A  novel,  "Memoirs  of  a  Water 
Drinker,"  had  just  been  completed,  and  was  await 
ing  the  pleasure  of  the  publisher.  His  brush  was 
not  yet  laid  aside,  for  in  August  he  began  two 

32  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  February  23  to  March  9, 
1833 ;  "Knickerbocker  Magazine,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  323  ff. 

33  Cummings,  p.  131. 


n8  KWiiam 

portraits,  but  no  doubt  his  orders  were  infrequent. 
In  all  his  work  he  was  hindered  by  severe  suffering 
from  an  ailment  which,  his  physician  pronounced 
bladder  trouble. 

On  September  10,  the  Diary  received  this  sig 
nificant  entry:  "In  Bank  left  $36.41.  I  always 
find  myself  poorer  on  settling  my  Bank  acct 
than  I  had  previously  supposed."  On  the  26th, 
his  account  had  sunk  to  $6.41. 

Yet  in  spite  of  his  several  occupations,  and  his 
financial  and  bodily  distress,  Dunlap  found  time 
and  energy  to  serve  actively  on  the  committee  for 
the  benefit  of  T.  A.  Cooper,  who  had  fallen  on 
evil  days,  and  to  attempt  the  study  of  Greek  under 
the  guidance  of  his  son.34  In  September  he 
recorded:  "Even  now  I  have  my  alphabet  & 
enjoy  the  opening  of  another  avenue  to  knowledge 
although  I  may  have  time  to  enter  but  a  little 
way."35 

As  the  year  lengthened,  his  suffering  became  so 
acute  that  he  often  resorted  to  laudanum  to  deaden 
the  pain,  taking  sometimes  as  much  as  seventy-five 
drops.  A  good  part  of  December  was  spent  in 
bed.  Yet  the  art  history  continued  to  progress; 
he  constantly  received  biographical  sketches  and 

34  By  this  time  John  A.  Dunlap  had  become  a  promising 
New  York  attorney.    He  entered  the  practice  in  1813.    In 
1815  he  published  a  large  digest  of  the  law  relating  to  the 
justices  of  the  peace,  and  in  1821  or  1822  another  large 
book  on  the   Supreme  Court  of  New  York.     See  New 
York   Directories,    1813-14;    "Analectic   Magazine/'  Vol. 
VI,  p.  419;  "Literary  and  Scientific  Repository,"  Vol.  IV, 
p.  40. 

35  Diary,  Vol.  XXX,  p.  41. 


25io0rapl)p  from  1B05  to  1B39     1 19 

other  information  concerning  artists  whom  he 
wished  to  include,  and  when  able  he  worked  at  his 
manuscript. 

Early  in  1834  the  physicians  diagnosed  his 
disease  as  gall-stones,  and  recommended  an  opera 
tion.  "The  remedy  for  this  disease,"  Dunlap 
wrote,  "has  always  appeared  to  me  dreadful— but 
submission  to  my  duty  I  hope  may  bear  me 
through  &  a  few  years  of  comparative  health 
may  reward.  'Thy  will  be  done.'  "36  The  opera 
tion  was  performed  on  the  26th  of  February  under 
the  direction  of  Drs.  Francis  and  McLean.  It  was 
unusually  severe.  The  patient  was  under  the  knife 
for  more  than  an  hour.  When  one  considers  that 
anaesthetics  were  not  yet  in  use,  one  is  not  sur 
prised  that  the  memory  of  the  ordeal  haunted  him 
like  a  nightmare  for  months. 

During  the  convalescence,  his  wife  and  daughter 
acted  as  nurses,  and  on  them  he  bestowed  more 
praise  for  his  recovery  than  on  the  doctors.  "I 
have  had,  and  have,  many  blessings,"  he  declared, 
"but  those  flowing  from  my  family  are  the  most 
precious."37  His  strength  returned  slowly,  but 
as  soon  as  he  could  sit  up  for  a  few  hours  he  re 
sumed  work  on  his  book.  By  April  he  was  able 
to  walk  out  a  little,  though  it  was  not  until  fall 
that  he  left  off  the  use  of  laudanum. 

On  the  5th  of  December  the  "Arts  of  Design," 
published  in  two  volumes  by  Scott  &  Company, 
was  placed  on  sale  and  copies  were  sent  to  the  sub- 

36  Diary,  Vol.  XXX,  p.  65. 

37  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  308. 


1 20  William  SDimlap 

scribers.38  The  subscription  was  surprisingly  na 
tional  in  scope ;  among  the  points  at  which  sets  had 
been  ordered  were  Key  West,  New  Orleans, 
Savannah,  Charleston,  Norfolk,  Philadelphia, 
Albany,  New  Haven,  and  Boston,  as  well  as  New 
York.  The  author  realized  some  profit  from  his 
labor,  though  not  enough  to  mitigate  his  poverty 
for  any  length  of  time. 

From  this  thirtieth  volume  of  the  Diary  may  be 
gained  some  interesting  glimpses  of  Dunlap's  com 
panions.  Washington  Irving  was  a  good  friend 
who  occasionally  dropped  in  to  spend  an  evening. 
On  his  return  from  abroad  he  expressed  the  con 
viction  that  democracy  was  the  best  system  of  gov 
ernment.  After  seventeen  years  of  foreign  resi 
dence  he  was  astonished,  he  said,  at  the  contrast 
between  our  cheerfulness  and  ambition,  and  the 
discontent  and  anxiety  which  pervaded  Europe. 
All  which,  Dunlap  replied,  he  had  known  long  ago. 
A,  closer  friend  was  J.  Fenimore  Cooper,  who  had 
the  habit  of  calling  several  times  a  week,  and  dur 
ing  the  period  of  the  operation  was  especially  at 
tentive.  The  convalescent  must  have  been  greatly 
cheered  and  diverted  by  the  visits  of  this  virile  and 
whole-souled  man.  On  April  13  he  wrote:  "J.  F. 
Cooper  with  me  about  an  hour  almost  wild  with 
politics";  and  on  December  21:  "J-  F.  Cooper 
calls  and  stays  till  2  oclock  full  of  politics  and 
anticipations  of  evil." 

As  usual,  Dunlap  was  reading  widely  at  this 

38  The  edition  comprised  one  thousand  sets,  and  sold  to 
subscribers  at  $5  a  set 


2£>iograpl)p  from  1B05  to  1B39     1 2  \ 

time.  Among  his  authors  were  Mrs.  Shelley,  Bos- 
well,  Cooper,  Walpole,  Gibbon,  Bulwer,  Edge- 
worth,  Defoe,  Hugo,  Moliere,  and  Pepys. 

For  the  remaining  years  of  his  life  very  little 
information  can  be  obtained.  He  continued  to  act 
as  vice-president  of  the  National  and  in  various 
ways  served  the  Academy.  He  seems  practically 
to  have  ceased  painting  about  1836.  Literary  en 
terprises  occupied  his  last  three  or  four  years. 
"Thirty  Years  Ago ;  or,  The  Memoirs  of  a  Water 
Drinker,"  which  had  existed  as  a  manuscript  in 
1833,  was  published  by  Bancroft  &  Holley  in 
two  volumes  in  the  summer  of  1836,  and  reprinted 
in  a  cheap  one-volume  edition  in  1837,  indicating 
that  it  met  a  ready  welcome  with  the  temperance 
societies  to  which  it  was  dedicated. 

Dunlap's  old  age,  like  his  whole  life,  was  full 
of  activity.  Necessity  was  the  immediate  incen 
tive;  yet  affluence  would  not  have  checked  his 
efforts,  for  he  had  the  habit  of  labor  and  took  joy 
in  his  work.  But  his  last  years  were  saddened  by 
the  loss  of  his  daughter  Margaret,  who  died  on 
June  9,  i837.39 

This  final  period  was  devoted  to  investigation 
in  the  history  of  New  York.  At  the  age  of  sixty- 
nine  or  seventy  Dunlap  had  conceived  the  ambi 
tion  of  writing  the  history  of  his  city  and  State, 
and  with  his  usual  energy  had  set  to  work  exam 
ining  the  records.  From  lack  of  funds  to  carry  on 
the  undertaking,  he  decided  to  publish  a  prelimi 
nary  text-book  from  the  material  he  had  so  far 

39  Dunlap  family  Bible. 


1 2  2  iteiiliam  BDunlap 

obtained.40  In  the  spring  of  1837  appeared  his 
"History  of  New  York,  for  Schools"  in  two 
small  volumes  from  the  press  of  Collins,  Keese 
&  Company. 

Dunlap  was  reflected  vice-president  of  the  Na 
tional  Academy  in  1838,  as  he  had  been  annually 
since  1831.  This  year,  however,  he  declined  the 
honor  on  account  of  ill-health.  Upon  his  retiring, 
the  Academy  asked  him  to  sit  to  Ingham  for  his 
portrait,  and  a  likeness  was  produced  which  was 
pronounced  faithful  in  the  extreme,41  and  which 
still  hangs  on  the  walls  of  the  National  Academy 
of  Design.  During  the  twelve  years  of  the  in 
stitution's  existence,  he  had  been  one  of  the  most 
active  in  promoting  its  interests.  Not  only  had  he 
held  various  offices  and  served  on  numerous  com 
mittees,  but  in  his  "Arts  of  Design"  he  had  been 
its  first  annalist.  Furthermore,  he  had  been  a 
regular  contributor  to  the  yearly  exhibitions.  His 
contributions  were  mostly  portraits,  but  biblical 
pictures,  illustrations  of  fiction,  and  allegorical 
subjects  were  also  among  them.42 

40  "American  Monthly  Magazine,"  Vol.  X,  p.  85. 

41  Cummings,  p.  151. 

42  The  following  is  a  list  of  Dunlap's  contributions  to 
the  annual  exhibitions:  — 1826:  five  portraits;  three  groups 
for   "Calvary";    "Barabbas    and    Thieves"— sketch    from 
West;    scene   from   the   "Spy";   "Cupid   Sleeping" — copy 
from  Mignard;  group  of  female  figures.     1827:  five  por 
traits,  including  General  P.  B.  Porter,  Governor  Clinton, 
Anthony  Bleecker,  and  the  artist;  a  group  for  "Death  on 
the  Pale  Horse";  a  group  for  "Calvary";  "Female  and 
Sleeping  Cupid"— Cupid  from  Guidp;  "Saviour  and  Mary 
Magdalen  in  the  Garden."    1828:  nine  portraits,  including 
Hackett  telling  the  story  of  Uncle  Ben;  two  studies  for 


25iograpl)p  from  1 B05  to  1 B33      123 

Of  Dunlap's  merits  as  a  painter  it  is  difficult  to 
speak  because  so  much  of  his  work  is  either  in 
accessible  or  non-extant.  But  students  of  the  sub 
ject  award  him  only  a  humble  place  in  American 
art.  Deficient  in  training  and  handicapped  by  the 
loss  of  an  eye,  he  was  ill-equipped  for  unusual 
achievements.  He  painted  to  keep  the  wolf  from 
the  door,  and  he  wisely  did  the  types  of  work  that 
were  most  in  demand,— miniatures,  oil  portraits, 
and  show  pieces.  In  his  historical  paintings  he 
was  a  consistent  imitator.  Lacking  creative 
imagination,  he  relied  on  West  for  subject-matter 
and  method.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
modest  success  of  these  pictures  resulted  in  large 
part  from  this  imitation,— such  was  the  dependence 
of  the  early  United  States  on  the  culture  of  Eng 
land.  As  disseminators  of  culture  through  the 

"Calvary."  1829 :  eleven  portraits,  including  J.  F.  Cooper ; 
"Clio";  "Counting  Chickens";  the  "Historic  Muse"  (pro 
nounced  a  graceful,  well-drawn  figure,— Sully  considered 
it  his  best  painting).  1830:  nine  portraits;  "Calvary"  (no 
doubt  the  small  preliminary  sketch).  1831:  twelve  por 
traits,  including  the  artist  (said  to  be  "one  of  the  best 
heads  ever  painted  in  this  country,"  perhaps  the  one 
shown  in  1827);  "Calvary";  the  "Detection  of  Harry 
Wharton,"  from  the  "Spy"  ;  a  study  for  "Christ  Rejected" ; 
"Counting  Chickens";  "Clio";  two  studies  for  "Calvary"; 
"Little  Girl  Coming  from  School."  1832 :  seven  portraits  ; 
"Holy  Family."  1833:  two  portraits;  "Artist  Showing 
Picture  to  his  Parents,"  painted  in  1788.  1834:  no  entries 
on  account  of  sickness.  1835 :  two  portraits,  including  G. 
P.  Morris;  "Richard  and  Kenneth,"  from  Scott's  "Talis 
man."  1836:  group  of  children.  1837:  no  entries.  1838: 
crayon  portrait  of  Washington,  made  in  1783.  For  data 
see  Catalogues  of  the  exhibitions  of  the  National  Acad 
emy  of  Design;  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  354; 
Vol.  X,  p.  266;  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  305. 


1 24  i$iHiam  SDunlap 

less  advanced  sections  of  the  country,  they  per 
formed  a  not  unimportant  service.  Bryant  said: 
"We  cannot  call  him  eminent  either  as  a  writer  or 
as  an  artist,  but  he  did  much  by  his  large  historical 
paintings,  exhibited  by  his  pupils  all  over  the 
country,  to  give  our  people  an  idea  of  what  a 
picture  ought  to  be,  and  to  awaken  in  them  a 
taste  for  art."43  Yet  no  doubt  these  pictures  had 
a  certain  effectiveness  in  themselves;  for, according 
to  a  contemporary  critic,  "In  these  he  has  studied 
a  free,  bold  manner,  which,  disregarding,  and 
sometimes  perhaps  in  too  great  a  degree,  the 
niceties  of  detail,  aims  at  producing  a  strong  gen 
eral  effect."44 

But  Dunlap's  forte  was  portraiture,  a  branch  of 
art  in  which  he  deserves  higher  rank  than  is  com 
monly  given  him.  We  have  found  his  ability  as 
a  miniaturist  to  be  considerable.  And  some  of  his 
oils  are  well  above  mediocrity, — a  fact  which 
students  of  American  art  often  overlook.  Among 
his  best  extant  portraits  are  those  of  a  Lady,  De 
Witt  Clinton,  John  A.  Conant,  Mrs.  Thomas  A. 
Cooper,  and  George  Spalding.  Perhaps  the  most 
distinctive  quality  of  all  these  is  their  humanness. 
The  last  two,  which  have  recently  come  to  light, 
give  evidence  of  unexpected  talent.  The  faces 
are  beautifully  drawn  and  are  full  of  character, 
the  colors  are  rich  and  soft,  and  the  whole  im 
pression  is  thoroughly  artistic.  The  following 

43  "The  Academy  of  Design,"  an  address  at  the  opening 
of  the  new  building  in  1865. 

44  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  X,  p.  266. 


25iograpljp  from  1  Bfl5  to  1 H30     125 

paragraphs  are  taken  from  the  "Bulletin  of  the 
Worcester  Art  Museum"  of  January,  1917: 

"The  Museum  has  lately  acquired  two  examples 
of  his  oil  portraits  which  in  general  excellence  will 
come  as  a  surprise  even  to  those  familiar  with  the 
best  work  of  the  early  American  school.  One,  the 
Portrait  of  a  Lady,  has  much  dignity  and  charm. 
The  genial  face  in  its  quaint  setting  of  dark  curls 
and  cap  of  creamy  lace,  the  easy  pose  against  a 
dark  crimson  curtain  drawn  back  from  an  open 
window,  and  the  harmonious  color  seen  in  the 
saffron  gown  and  paler  yellow  ribbons,  all  com 
bine  to  make  a  picture  comparable  to  the  work  of 
Thomas  Sully  at  his  best. 

"The  other,  a  Portrait  of  George  Spalding,  is  of 
still  finer  quality.  The  young  man  .  .  .  wears  a 
dark  coat,  with  the  stock  and  ruff  of  the  early 
nineteenth  century.  The  smooth-shaven  face  and 
the  fashion  of  the  curling  hair,  drawn  forward 
over  forehead  and  cheeks,  betoken  the  same  period. 
In  technique  this  portrait  might  well  be  taken  for 
an  excellent  example  of  Dunlap's  contemporary, 
Gilbert  Stuart,  and  it  is  of  special  interest  in  being 
a  first-rate  piece  of  work  by  an  early  American 
artist  who  has  hitherto  been  almost  unknown." 

Desiring  to  show  their  appreciation  of  his  zeal 
for  the  cause  and  to  aid  in  forwarding  the  "His 
tory  of  New  York,"  Dunlap's  fellow  artists  ar 
ranged  a  picture  exhibit  for  his  benefit.  The  com 
mittee  comprised  Verplanck,  Bryant,  Morris, 
Francis,  and  several  leading  painters.  Between 


1 2  6  B&iiliam  SDunlap 

two  hundred  and  two  hundred  and  fifty  pictures, 
chiefly  modern,  were  collected  and  placed  in  the 
Stuyvesant  Institute.  The  display  began  on  No 
vember  19,  1838,  to  run  four  weeks;  the  admission 
was  twenty-five  cents.  Among  the  painters  rep 
resented  were  Cole,  Durand^MorseTWeir,  Jarvis, 
Dunlap,  Inman,  Inghamjmeynold^West,  Stuart, 
Allston,  Sully,  Copley,  anal  rurnbull.  The  news 
papers  urged  attendance.  The  "Mirror,"  always 
very  cordial  to  Dunlap,  declared  that  such  a  bene 
fit  was  really  a  public  duty  because  of  his  long 
services  and  his  present  misfortunes.  That  peri 
odical  asserted  that  "another  such  opportunity  of 
witnessing  in  one  coup-d'ceil  the  chef-d'ceuvres 
of  many  of  our  first  artists  will  not  soon  be  pre 
sented."  None  the  less,  at  the  end  of  a  month  only 
about  $200  had  been  cleared,  and  it  was  decided  to 
continue  the  exhibition  a  few  weeks  longer.  It 
closed  on  January  5,  1839,  with  a  balance  of  about 
$1000,  which  was  presented  to  Dunlap.45 

He  was  thus  enabled  to  proceed  to  the  publica 
tion  of  his  work,  but  while  the  first  volume  was  in 
the  press  he  was  stricken  with  paralysis.  Though 
for  a  time  he  had  sufficient  strength  to  correct 
proof,  yet  finally  the  pen  dropped  from  his  power 
less  hand.  His  purpose,  however,  was  not  de 
feated,  for  through  the  efforts  of  others  the  first 
volume  of  the  "History  of  the  New  Netherlands, 
Province  of  New  York,  and  State  of  New  York, 

45  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  November  17,  1838,  and 
following  issues;  Catalogue  of  the  Exhibit;  "New  York 
Mirror,"  Vol.  XVI,  pp.  175,  215,  231. 


from  1B05  to  1B30      1 2  7 

to  the  Adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,"  came 
from  the  press  of  Carter  &  Thorp  about  the 
middle  of  September,  and  the  second  volume  a 
few  months  later.46 

On  the  morning  of  September  28,  1839,  William 
Dunlap  died  at  his  home  in  Greenwich  Lane.  He 
was  survived  by  his  wife  and  son.  His  body  was 
taken  to  Perth  Amboy  for  burial. 

Until  his  last  illness  his  mind  remained  clear  and 
vigorous.  His  acquaintances  found  his  memory 
"a  vast  store-house  of  facts  and  anecdotes."47  In 
deed,  it  would  be  difficult  to  name  a  contemporary 
who  had  gone  through  a  wider  range  of  experience 
or  known  more  interesting  and  important  people 
than  he,  and  not  without  reason  was  he  considered 
one  of  the  most  attractive  conversationalists  to  be 
met  with. 

Dunlap's  long  life  of  seventy-three  and  a  half 
years  was  one  of  continued  devotion  to  cultural 
pursuits.  He  early  swore  allegiance  to  art  and 
letters,  and  through  privation  and  disappointment, 
in  spite  of  obstacles  that  would  have  discouraged 
most  men,  he  held  his  allegiance  true  until  the  day 
of  his  death.  He  had  more  than  his  share  of  afflic 
tions,  but  his  optimism  bore  him  courageously 
through.  In  no  sense  a  genius,  he  yet  won  for 
himself  an  honorable  place  in  two  spheres  of 
cultural  activity  by  dint  of  perseverance  and  de 
termination.  While  deriving  no  little  satisfaction 
from  the  distinctions  and  friendships  which  were 

*«  Preface  to  Vol.  II  of  the  "History  of  New  York." 
47  "Commercial  Advertiser,"  October  2,  1839. 


1 2  8  William  JDuntag 

his  portion,  he  was  always  extremely  modest  con 
cerning  his  ability.  He  carried  through  life  a 
lofty  ideal,  and  in  all  he  did  he  strove  to  serve  the 
highest  moral  and  intellectual  welfare  of  his  city 
and  nation. 

His  contemporaries  warmly  praised  his  ac 
complishments,  but  especially  did  they  pay  tribute 
to  his  character  as  an  upright  and  lovable  man. 
The  "Mirror"  spoke  the  common  opinion  when  it 
said  sometime  before  his  death : 

"Engaged  for  so  many  years  in  pursuits  so 
various,  active  and  exciting,  in  which  he  was  not 
always  kindly  treated  by  fortune,  and  which 
brought  him  into  conflict  with  so  many  interests, 
it  might  almost  be  deemed  impossible  that  Mr. 
Dunlap  should  have  escaped  occasions  of  slander 
and  enmity.  Yet,  few  men  have  passed  through 
life  so  free  from  reproach,  and  few  are  so  uni 
versally  beloved.  Mr.  Dunlap,  by  general  con 
sent,  bears  that  noblest  of  titles— an  honest  man. 
His  manners  are  unassuming  and  kind;  his  con 
versation  full  of  knowledge  and  anecdote;  his 
moral  judgment  true  and  delicate ;  and  his  feelings 
warm  and  generous."48 

«  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  X,  p.  266. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  ORIGINAL  PLAYS 


WILLIAM  DUNLAP  has  been  called  the 
Father  of  American  Drama.  How  far  he 
deserves  this  ascription  of  paternity  can  be  decided 
only  by  first  considering  the  status  of  dramatic 
literature  in  this  country  prior  to  his  advent. 

The  early  colonists  had  little  leisure  and  less 
inclination  for  theatrical  frivolity.  But  by  1714 
a  play  had  been  written  and  printed  on  colonial 
soil, — "Androborus,"  a  political  farce  by  Robert 
Hunter,  Governor  of  New  York.  The  real  incep 
tion  of  native  drama,  however,  did  not  occur  until 
the  stage  presentation  of  English  plays  had  become 
an  established  fact.  This  situation  was  attendant 
upon  the  arrival  of  the  Hallam  Company  in  1752* 

Stimulated  by  the  frequent  performance  of 
"Richard  III,"  "Romeo  and  Juliet,"  "George  Barn- 
well,"  "Cato,"  "The  Beaux'  Stratagem,"  and  other 
masterpieces  of  the  British  theatre,  a  few  of  our 
more  adventurous  writers  began  uncertainly  to 
essay  the  dramatic.  First  in  ability  as  well  as  in 
time  among  these  pioneers  was  Thomas  Godfrey 
of  Philadelphia.  In  1759,  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
three,  he  wrote  a  tragedy  called  "The  Prince  of 

1  See  ante,  p.  32. 

129 


1 30  HDilliam  SDuntop 

Parthia,"  which  was  acted  in  1767.2  It  is  not  a 
very  excellent  tragedy;  indeed,  a  modern  reader 
would  find  its  most  tragic  passages  humorous.  Yet 
considering  its  author's  youth  and  the  circum 
stances  under  which  he  worked,  it  is  surprisingly 
good,  and  American  drama  might  easily  have  had 
a  less  dignified  beginning. 

"The  Prince  of  Parthia"  was  unmistakably  con 
structed  according  to  the  pseudo-classic  conven 
tions  which  were  prominently  employed  in  Eng 
land  during  the  eighteenth  century.  It  is  akin  to 
Addison's  "Cato,"  Thomson's  "Sophonisba,"  John 
son's  "Irene,"  and  other  blank  verse  tragedies 
involving  classic  or  oriental  settings,  the  three 
unities,  and  stiffly  formal  treatment.  In  fact,  God 
frey's  play  bears  a  general  resemblance  to  Lee's 
"Theodosius,"  one  of  the  early  representatives  of 
the  type.  It  also  contains  some  Shakespearian 
reminiscences.  The  influence  of  "Romeo  and 
Juliet"  may  be  traced  in  the  death  of  the  lovers, 
and  an  echo  of  "Julius  Caesar"  can  be  detected  in 
the  supernatural  portents  which  prelude  the  catas 
trophe.  "The  Prince  of  Parthia"  thus  announced 
distinctly  that  American  drama  in  its  inception  was 
to  be  no  independent  growth,  but  an  offshoot  of 
the  English  plant. 

The  next  two  plays  were  written  by  men  un 
acquainted  with  dramatic  literature,  and  reveal  the 
extent  to  which  our  writers  were  capable  of  going 
when  not  copying  definite  models.  "Ponteach" 
(1766),  a  tragedy  of  Indian  life,  was  the  work  of 

2  Seilhamer,  "History  of  the  American  Theatre,"  Vol.  I, 
p.  189. 


€i)e  Original  $Iapg  1 3 1 

Major  Robert  Rogers,  a  frontiersman  and  Indian 
fighter.  Somewhat  to  our  astonishment,  the  red 
skins  are  shown  to  be  more  sinned  against  than 
sinning.  We  see  them  victimized  by  the  white 
man's  rapacity  and  deception,  against  which  their 
only  defense  is  the  tomahawk.  "Ponteach"  is  im 
portant  as  our  first  play  to  deal  with  American 
material,  but  it  does  so  in  an  exceedingly  crude 
and  formless  way. 

"The  Conquest  of  Canada;  or,  The  Siege  of 
Quebec"  (1766),  by  George  Cockings,  is  even 
worse ;  nevertheless  it  appeared  on  the  Philadelphia 
stage  in  the  season  of  1 772-3.3  Utterly  devoid  of 
plot  or  structure,  it  is  simply  a  chronicle  of  the 
battle  in  which  the  author  has  tried  to  include 
every  detail.  The  poverty  of  the  Colonial  theatre 
in  the  matter  of  mechanics  is  suggested  by  a  scene 
in  Act  III.  The  nocturnal  expedition  of  the 
French  fire-ships  against  the  British  fleet  is  to  be 
illustrated.  The  stage  is  darkened,  and  not  a  per 
son  appears.  The  desired  effect  is  produced  by 
much  yelling  and  bawling  of  orders  behind  the 
scenes.  The  next  morning  we  are  carried  to  a 
near-by  nunnery,  where  the  sisters  dilate  over  the 
horrors  of  the  past  night.  Humble,  indeed,  were 
the  beginnings  of  American  drama. 

In  1767  comedy  began  unpropitiously  with  "The 
Disappointment;  or,  The  Force  of  Credulity,"  by 
Andrew  Barton.4  This  wretched  farce,  which 
satirizes  the  then  prevalent  practice  of  searching 

3  Seilhamer,  Vol.  I,  p.  302. 

4  Perhaps  an  assumed  name  for  Colonel  Thomas  Forrest 
of  Germantown.     The  play  was  to  appear  at  the  South- 


1 3 2  J©flliam  SDunlap 

for  buried  pirate  treasure,  concerns  itself  with  the 
scheme  of  several  tricksters,  who  bury  a  chest  of 
bricks  and  inveigle  a  group  of  gulls  to  dig  it  up  in 
their  quest  for  gold.  Containing  as  it  does  some 
twenty  songs,  "The  Disappointment"  had  the  fur 
ther  honor  of  initiating  American  ballad-opera.5 
The  type  grew  up  in  imitation  of  the  English  spe 
cies,  which  had  been  brought  to  a  high  pitch  of 
popularity  in  both  countries  by  "The  Beggar's 
Opera"  (1728)  and  its  followers. 

The  Revolutionary  War  with  its  preliminary 
events  called  out  a  few  plays  in  defense  of  each 
party,  all  of  them  feeble  from  the  dramatic  stand 
point.  To  Mrs.  Mercy  Warren,  daughter  and 
sister  of  the  Otises  and  wife  of  General  Warren, 
have  been  attributed  four  scathing  satires  against 
the  British.  The  first  of  these,  "The  Adulateur" 
(  X773)  >  is  perhaps  the  most  interesting.  It  is  com 
posed  in  inflated  blank  verse,  and  represents  the 
Adamses,  Hancock,  Warren,  and  other  patriots 
under  the  guise  of  the  Roman  conspirators: 
Brutus,  Cassius,  Marcus,  Portius,  etc.6 

wark  Theatre,  Philadelphia,  but  was  withdrawn  just  be 
fore  its  presentation  because  of  personal  reflections 
contained  in  it.  See  Seilhamer,  Vol.  I,  pp.  177-8. 

5  The  term  ballad-opera  properly  applies  only  to  plays 
like  "The  Beggar's  Opera/'  the  lyrics  of  which  were  set  to 
popular  airs;  but  it  is  commonly  used  to  designate  also 
those  plays  containing  songs  with  original  music.     For 
discussion  of  the  type  see  O.  G.  Sonneck's  "Early  Opera 
in  America." 

6  See  P.  L.  Ford,  "Some  Notes  toward  an  Essay  on  the 
Beginnings    of    American    Dramatic    Literature,"    New 
York,  1893,  pp.  15-16;  M.  C.  Tyler,  "Literary  History  of 
the  American  Revolution,"  New  York  and  London,  1897, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  193-4- 


1 3  3 

The  only  other  playwright  of  any  importance 
whose  name  has  emerged  from  this  period  was 
Hugh  Henry  Brackenridge.  His  two  tragedies, 
'The  Battle  of  Bunker's-Hill"  (1776)  and  "The 
Death  of  Montgomery  in  Storming  the  City  of 
Quebec"  (1777),  are  of  a  highly  rhetorical  nature. 
The  action  is  as  slight  as  may  be,  but  the  deficiency 
is  supplied  by  a  succession  of  bombastic  blank 
verse  speeches.  The  former  drama  is  a  eulogy  of 
American  bravery.  The  latter  is  a  violent  denun 
ciation  of  British  brutality  and  treachery.  Even 
the  ghost  of  Wolfe  arises  to  condemn  his  country 
men  and  to  prophesy  the  future  glories  of  the 
United  States  in  an  oration  of  fifty-six  lines. 

The  English  cause  had  champions  equally  rabid. 
Nothing  could  exceed  the  scurrility  of  the  anony 
mous  "Battle  of  Brooklyn"  (1776).  The  Ameri 
can  people  are  represented  as  stupid  cowards  and 
their  leaders,  Washington  in  particular,  as  degen 
erate  scoundrels. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  plays  of  the  Revo 
lution  did  not  advance  our  dramatic  literature. 
The  writers  were  too  much  engrossed  in  the  de 
lights  of  reviling  the  enemy  to  pay  much  attention 
to  more  artistic  considerations. 

A  better  composition  than  any  since  "The  Prince 
of  Parthia"  was  Peter  Markoe's  "Patriot  Chief" 
(1784),  though  its  excellences  are  but  few.  It 
is  another  so-called  tragedy  in  the  formal  style 
then  in  vogue. 

The  first  American  comedy  worthy  of  the  name 
was  "The  Contrast,"  by  Royall  Tyler,  which  was 
acted  four  times  at  New  York  in  1787,  with  sub- 


134  BMKiam  SDunlap 

sequent  performances  at  Philadelphia  and  else 
where.7  It  contains  a  well-defined  and  skilfully 
managed  plot  of  considerable  interest.  The  play 
contrasts  the  affected,  Europeanized  American 
with  the  sincere  and  sterling  home-bred  citizen. 

Royall  Tyler's  distinct  contribution  to  our  drama 
was  a  new  humorous  character,  the  Yankee.  His 
Jonathan  was  the  progenitor  of  a  long  and  honor 
able  line  of  stage  Yankees,  commonly  glorying  in 
the  baptismal  name  of  their  ancestor,  and  all  inher 
iting  his  ignorance  and  gawkiness,  his  shrewdness 
and  honesty,  his  dialect  and  "darnations."  Dialect 
had  occasionally  been  employed  before  in  Ameri 
can  plays,  "The  Disappointment"  for  instance,  but 
Tyler's  Jonathan  was  the  first  attempt  to  create 
humor  by  exploiting  provincialism. 

For  our  purpose  "The  Contrast"  is  noteworthy 
primarily  as  the  earliest  sentimental  play  to  be 
written  in  this  country.  As  such  it  was  the  shower 
which  preceded  the  deluge.  Tyler's  model,  of 
course,  was  the  emotional  comedy  of  England, 
which  had  been  so  conspicuous  on  the  British  stage 
throughout  the  century,  and  which  had  also  gained 
a  large  following  in  the  New  World.  The  purpose 
of  English  sentimental  comedy  was  twofold:  to 
correct  morals  and  to  arouse  the  feelings  to  a  high 
pitch  of  activity.  The  former  aim  was  generally 
accomplished  by  the  reformation  of  a  rake,  as  in 
Gibber's  "Careless  Husband"  (1704)  and  Kelly's 
"School  for  Wives"  (1773);  the  latter  by  the 
reuniting  of  long-lost  brothers  and  sisters,  or  par- 

7  Seilhamer,  Vol.  II,  index. 


€f>£  Original  Jplapg  1 3  5 

ents  and  children,  and  by  the  distress  and  final 
happiness  of  lovers,  as  in  Steele's  "Conscious  Lov 
ers"  (1722),  Whitehead's  "School  for  Lovers" 
(1762),  and  Cumberland's  "Natural  Son"  (1784). 
Sentimentalism  developed  a  code  of  conduct  all  its 
own.  The  true  sentimentalist  was  required  to 
approach  each  circumstance  of  life  through  the 
heart,  not  the  head.  A  poor  man  should  be  given 
a  fortune  instead  of  a  job.  Tears  must  be  always 
ready  to  flow  at  any  sign  of  distress.  Parents,  no 
matter  how  unreasonable,  should  be  respected  and 
obeyed.  A  lady  should  so  guard  her  every  act  that 
no  shade  of  indelicacy  might  darken  her  fair  name. 
She  should  cultivate  the  art  of  fainting  gracefully. 
A  gentleman  must  be  ever  ready  to  forgive  injury, 
and  to  throw  away  his  sword  when  an  enemy  is  in 
his  power, — such  magnanimity  is  the  surest  safe 
guard  of  honor.  Lovers  must  show  the  most  dis 
interested  regard  for  each  other's  sense  of  delicacy. 
They  may  spout  sentiments  profusely,  but  they 
should  never  display  spontaneous  emotion.8 

Apparently  Tyler  studied  diligently  in  the  Eng 
lish  school  of  sensibility,  for  "The  Contrast"  is 
entirely  orthodox.  There  is  a  rascal  of  the  name 
of  Dimple  who  must  be  exposed.  There  is  a  hero, 
Col.  Manly,  and  a  heroine,  Maria,  whose  happiness 
is  balked  for  a  time  by  a  headstrong  father.  The 
lovers  are  as  thorough  a  pair  of  sentimentalists  as 
writer  ever  invented.  Their  sense  of  delicacy  is 

8  For  a  complete  discussion  of  English  sentimental  drama 
see  Ernest  Bernbaum,  "Drama  of  Sensibility,"  Boston, 
1915. 


136  itefliiam  SDunlap 

awe-inspiring.  Ridiculed  by  their  gay  and  thought 
less  acquaintance,  they  pursue  unperturbed  the 
path  of  solemn  rectitude  which  leadeth  unto  matri 
mony.  The  curtain  descends  on  the  triumph  of 
sentimentality  and  the  discomfiture  of  the  frivolous 
and  still  unmated  scoffers. 

As  Dunlap  began  to  write,  a  few  other  plays  of 
the  prevailing  types  were  coming  from  the  press. 
In  1789  Samuel  Low  published  "The  Politician 
Outwitted,"  a  comedy  of  a  somewhat  sentimental 
nature,  containing  a  rustic  character  imitated  from 
Jonathan.  In  1790  were  printed  two  tragedies, 
"The  Ladies  of  Castile"  and  "The  Sack  of  Rome," 
written  by  Mrs.  Mercy  Warren  in  the  conventional 
manner. 

It  can  readily  be  seen  that  a  playwright  entering 
the  field  about  1790  would  gain  very  little  aid  from 
the  productions  of  his  American  precursors.  The 
body  of  native  drama  was  small  (the  majority  of 
the  plays  have  been  cited  above)  and  of  quite 
negligible  quality.  Except  that  comedy  should  be 
realistic  and  more  or  less  satirical,  and  tragedy 
vaguely  classical  in  the  eighteenth  century  sense, 
there  were  no  traditions.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact 
Dunlap  did  not  much  bother  himself  about  his 
predecessors.  He  was  probably  unaware  of  their 
existence,  with  the  exception  of  Tyler.  For  his 
inspiration  he  went  directly  to  England  just  as  his 
forerunners  had  done. 


3fyt  Original  $lap£  1 3  7 


II 

WILLIAM  DUNLAP'S  first  dramatic  offspring  has 
long  slumbered  in  an  unmarked  grave.  "The  Mod 
est  Soldier;  or,  Love  in  New  York"  (1787)  is 
known  to  us  only  through  the  author's  slight  sketch 
of  it  in  his  "History  of  the  American  Theatre": 
"A  Yankee  servant,  a  travelled  American,  an  offi 
cer  in  the  late  revolutionary  army,  a  fop,  such  as 
fops  then  were  in  New- York,  an  old  gentleman 
and  his  two  daughters,  one  of  course  lively  and 
the  other  serious,  formed  the  dramatis  personae."9 
Written  under  the  spell  of  the  contemporary  Eng 
lish  stage,  with  which  Dunlap  had  become  familiar 
during  his  recent  sojourn  abroad,  and  directly 
prompted  by  "The  Contrast,"10  "The  Modest  Sol 
dier"  was  undoubtedly  a  comedy  of  sentiment.  It 
is  safe  to  conjecture  that  the  Yankee  servant  was 
a  second  Jonathan,  that  the  modest  soldier  was  a 
brother  of  Col.  Manly,  that  the  fop  was  of  the  tribe 
of  Dimple,  and  that  the  serious  daughter  was  as 
hopeless  a  sentimentalist  as  Maria. 

With  his  second  attempt  Dunlap  graduated  into 
the  meagre  ranks  of  the  successful  American  play 
wrights.  As  our  author's  first  acted  play,  "The 
Father;  or,  American  Shandyism"  (written  1788) 
is  perhaps  of  sufficient  interest  to  warrant  a  de- 

9  P-  77. 

10  See  ante,  p.  14. 


138  Jl^ifliam  SDunlap 

tailed  synopsis,  which  may  give  some  notion  of  his 
ability  at  dramatic  construction. 

There  is  a  prologue  in  praise  of  the  moral  stage 
of  the  New  World. 

Scene:  New  York  City. 

Act  I.  Mr.  Racket,  after  a  year  of  matrimony, 
has  grown  indifferent  toward  his  wife,  and  spends 
his  time  in  gambling  and  dissipation.  Resolving 
to  cure  him  by  jealousy,  Mrs.  Racket  affects  a 
great  regard  for  Capt.  Ranter,  an  English  libertine. 

Act  II.  Mrs.  Racket's  uncle,  Col.  Duncan,  and 
his  servant,  Cartridge,  plan  to  construct  a  mimic 
fort  in  Mrs.  Racket's  tulip  garden,  for  which  Car 
tridge  is  devising  a  pair  of  guns  from  the  Colonel's 
old  boots.  Duncan  and  Cartridge  are  very  much 
devoted  to  each  other  and  benevolent  toward  all 
the  world.  They  are  full  of  sympathy  for  the 
charitable  Caroline,  Mrs.  Racket's  sister,  who  is 
wasting  away  from  secret  grief. 

Act  III.  Caroline,  sola,  laments  the  probable 
death  of  her  fiance,  Henry.  Enter  Col.  Duncan, 
who  reveals  to  her  his  history — the  old  story  of  a 
secret  marriage,  and  an  infant  son  entrusted  to  a 
friend.  The  son  was  reported  killed  at  Bunker 
Hill.  Caroline  in  turn  confesses  her  love  for 
Henry,  and  describes  a  ring  he  wore,  which  the 
Colonel  recognizes  as  one  he  had  given  his  son. 
Ranter  enters,  displays  the  ring  under  discussion, 
and  declares  that  Henry  in  dying  gave  it  to  him. 

Act  IV.  Henry  appears,  disguised  as  a  blind 
soldier,  in  pursuit  of  his  servant  Marsh,  alias  Ran 
ter,  who  has  stolen  his  ring.  The  blind  soldier 


€lje  Original  papg  1 3  9 

assures  them  that  Henry  is  alive ;  Ranter  swears  he 
saw  him  die.  Caroline,  alternately  exalted  by  hope 
and  crushed  by  despair,  finds  ample  occasion  for 
fainting  and  tears. 

Act  V.  Scene:  A  dark  hallway.  Racket  at 
tempts  to  seduce  the  maid  Susannah.  Enter  Ranter 
with  Mrs.  Racket,  whose  virtue  he  is  assailing.  At 
sounds  of  violence  Duncan  and  Cartridge  rush  in. 
In  the  confusion  Mrs.  Racket  gets  into  the  arms  of 
her  husband,  and  a  reconciliation  follows.  Henry 
now  appears  without  disguise  and,  his  identity 
established,  falls  into  the  arms  of  his  father,  Col. 
Duncan. 

The  epilogue  ridicules  the  play,  and  protests  that 
the  author  should  not  be  encouraged. 

The  humor  is  entrusted  mainly  to  Dr.  Quiescent, 
an  unbalanced  physician,  who  obtained  his  degree 
at  Edinburgh  by  a  thesis  on  recovering  drowned 
kittens.  He  is  an  "impenetrable  coxcomb"  to 
whom  every  occurrence  is  a  reminder  of  some  re 
markable  case  he  has  attended. 

The  reason  for  the  sub-title,  "American  Shandy- 
ism,"  is  apparent  from  the  above  summary.  Col. 
Duncan  is  a  close  copy  of  Sterne's  Uncle  Toby 
Shandy,  and  Cartridge  of  his  Corporal  Trim.  The 
Colonel  rides  Uncle  Toby's  hobby,  mimic  warfare, 
he  has  a  potential  Widow  Wadman  in  Mrs.  Gre 
nade,  and  he  is  as  all-embracingly  benevolent  as  his 
prototype.  Cartridge  says  of  him : 

"I  have  known  him  brush  away  the  mosquito 
that  bit  him  with  his  handkerchief,  thus:  'I  can 


1 40  nfttUiam  SDunlap 

forgive  thee,'  says  he;  'thou  actest  up  to  thy  na 
ture.'  ...  He  will  not  let  anybody,  that  has  to  do 
with  him,  kill  any  toads  and  such  things,  ...  he 
saves  from  sorrow  all  that  fall  in  his  way— the 
man  as  well  as  the  insect."11 

But  Duncan  is  only  a  formal  imitation  of  the  im 
mortal  Uncle  Toby;  whatever  charm  he  possesses 
is  reflected,  for  he  lacks  the  breath  of  life. 

It  is  needless  to  dwell  on  the  fact  that  "The 
Father"  is  a  thorough-going  sentimental  comedy. 
It  could  hardly  have  been  anything  else.  Not  only 
was  the  whole  tendency  of  contemporary  literature 
in  that  direction,  but  Dunlap  was  by  nature  sus 
ceptible  to  sentimentalism,  being  a  moralist  and  a 
humanitarian.  The  main  plot  is  of  the  lost-rela 
tive-found  type,  and  involves  the  distressed-lover 
theme.  The  sub-plot  is  a  reformed-rake  episode. 
The  dark-hall  affair  in  the  last  act  may  have  been 
suggested,  as  Genest  has  pointed  out,12  by  Gar- 
rick's  "Bon  Ton;  or,  High  Life  Above  Stairs" 
(1775),  in  which  two  guilty  couples  meet  in  a  dark 
room,  the  husband  by  mistake  taking  possession 
of  his  wife.  The  intervention  of  a  moral  uncle 
heightens  the  resemblance. 

As  the  second  play  of  a  youth  of  twenty-two, 
"The  Father"  is  distinctly  commendable.  Without 
much  claim  to  originality,  it  shows  that  ability  to 
discover  public  taste  which  is  one  of  the  essentials 

11  Act  III. 

12  "Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  from  the  Resto 
ration  in  1660  to  1830,"  London,  Vol.  X,  p.  197. 


Clje  Original  $lap£  1 4 l 

of  theatrical  success.  To  be  sure  it  is  overcrowded 
with  incident,  and  contains  several  scenes  and  fig 
ures  which  do  not  forward  the  action,  yet  it  is 
brisk  and  entertaining,  it  is  managed  with  discre 
tion,  and  it  should  have  gone  well  on  the  stage. 
The  "American  Quarterly  Review"  of  1827  pro 
nounced  it  one  of  our  best  plays.  "The  plot,"  it 
declared,  "is  sufficiently  dramatic  to  carry  an  in 
terest  throughout;  the  characters  are  well  drawn, 
and  well  employed;  and  the  dialogue  possesses, 
what  is  indispensable  to  genuine  comedy,  a  brief 
terseness,  and  unstudied  ease,  which  few  of  the 
productions  of  the  present  era  afford."13  Genest 
said :  "This  is  so  good  a  comedy,  that  one  is  sur 
prised,  that  it  should  not  have  been  brought  out  on 
the  English  stage."14 

The  edition  of  1806  made  considerable  altera 
tion  in  the  play,  which  was  now  called  "The  Father 
of  an  Only  Child."  The  changes  in  the  main  were 
for  the  better.  Some  of  the  early  crudity  was 
removed,  the  style  was  more  highly  finished,  and 
certain  scenes  and  characters  were  more  com 
pletely  developed.  The  Doctor  was  made  more  of, 
his  amusing  attempt  to  resuscitate  a  bundle  of  old 
clothes  being  added.  The  second  edition  was 
lengthened  by  about  two  thousand  words,  and 
was  further  altered  by  a  rechristening  of  several 
characters, — for  instance,  Duncan  became  Camp 
bell,  Cartridge  became  Platoon,  Ranter  became 
Rushport,  and  Dr.  Quiescent  became  Dr.  Terebrate 

is  Vol.  I,  p.  350. 
i*  Vol.  X,  p.  196. 


142  HDtittam 

Tattle.  The  increased  moralizing  tendency  of  this 
edition  suggests  that  Dunlap's  managerial  experi 
ence  had  convinced  him  of  the  potency  of  the 
theatre  as  a  social  influence. 

"Darby's  Return,"  the  interlude  which  the  young 
playwright  composed  in  1789  for  Wignell's  benefit, 
drew  all  its  characters  from  O'KeefiVs  "Poor  Sol 
dier,"  in  which  the  comedian  was  a  favorite  as 
Darby.  Dunlap  imagined  the  mischief-maker  to 
have  returned  to  Ireland  from  his  wanderings,  and 
to  be  relating  his  experiences  to  his  old  friends. 
The  first  adventure — his  involuntary  voyage  to 
Dantzic — and  his  career  as  a  Prussian  soldier 
were  taken  from  O'Keeffe's  "Patrick  in  Prussia; 
or,  Love  in  a  Camp,"  a  sequel  to  "The  Poor 
Soldier."  Leaving  Germany,  Darby  eventually 
reached  America,  a  country  which  won  his  heart, 
as  he  tells  the  admiring  throng.  From  the  United 
States  he  made  a  flying  trip  to  France  and  thence 
home. 

The  author  admitted  in  the  preface  that  the 
piece  was  a  hasty  and  incorrect  sketch,  which  he 
had  no  idea  of  printing  until  urged  to  do  so  by 
friends.  It  has,  none  the  less,  a  few  points  of  inter 
est.  Dunlap  was  affiliated  with  the  Federalist 
party,  and  the  passage  on  France  reflects  the  un 
sympathetic  attitude  of  the  Federalists  toward  the 
French  Revolution: 

"I  went  to  France.    I  always  did  love  quiet, 
And  there  I  got  in  the  middle  of  a  riot. 
There  they  cried,  'vive  la  nation'  'liberty' 


€l>c  Original  $lapg  1 43 

And  all  the  bag  and  tails  swore  they'd  be  free ; 
They  caught  the  fire  quite  across  the  ocean, 
And  to  be  sure  they're  in  a  nice  commotion : 
'Down  with  the  bastille,  tuck  up  the  jailor, 
Cut  off  mi  tor's  head,  then  pay  his  taylor.' 

Some  took  the  liberty  to  plunder  others, 
You  may  be  sure  I  didn't  stay  there  long." 

Further,  "Darby's  Return"  is  interesting  as  the 
first  American  ballad-opera  to  face  the  footlights. 
Though  a  brief  affair  of  nine  pages,  it  is  a  true 
ballad-opera  because  its  two  songs  are  set  to  popu 
lar  airs. 

The  promise  of  worthy  achievement  held  out  in 
"The  Father"  was  not  belied  in  Dunlap's  first 
tragedy,  "The  Fatal  Deception;  or,  The  Progress 
of  Guilt"  (written  1790),  which  was  printed  as 
"Leicester."  The  story  is  sufficiently  exciting  if 
somewhat  extravagant. 

Act  I.  Lord  Leicester  is  approaching  Kenil- 
worth  after  a  considerable  absence  at  war,  eager 
to  rejoin  his  bride,  Matilda.  He  comes  upon  Dud 
ley  Cecil  defending  himself  and  his  wife  against  a 
band  of  assailants.  Leicester  rescues  them,  and 
persuades  them  to  accompany  him  to  his  castle. 

Act  II.  Matilda  is  living  in  adultery  with 
Henry  Cecil,  whom  she  has  installed  in  the  house 
hold  as  her  brother.  She  wishes  to  flee  with  him, 
but  her  husband's  unexpected  arrival  prevents. 


1 44  ID  1 11  urn  Dunlap 

Matilda  learns  that  her  real  brother  is  on  his  way 
to  Kenilworth.  Realizing  that  her  deception  will 
be  disclosed,  she  convinces  Henry  that  he  must  kill 
Leicester. 

Act  III.  Leicester  takes  Dudley  Cecil  to  his 
own  room  to  rest.  Matilda  and  Henry  approach 
the  chamber.  After  a  passionate  struggle,  he  en 
ters  the  darkened  room  and  stabs  the  sleeper. 

Act  IV.  Leicester  learns  of  the  infidelity  of 
Matilda  and  Henry,  and  vows  vengeance.  When 
Henry  meets  Leicester  his  consternation  is  great, 
but  it  gives  place  to  anguish  when  he  discovers  that 
his  victim  was  his  own  brother. 

Act  V.  Matilda  attempts  to  poison  Leicester, 
but  he  wards  off  the  danger.  Thereupon  she  stabs 
herself  in  his  presence.  Henry  now  enters  as 
though  to  engage  in  combat,  but  instead  runs  on 
his  opponent's  sword  and  dies. 

In  the  preface  Dunlap  said : 

"To  most  readers,  Matilda  urging  Henry  to  the 
murder  of  Leicester  will  appear  as  a  copy  of  Lady 
Macbeth;  but  she  is,  in  reality,  more  in  situation 
like  the  Clytemnestra  of  the  Greek  poets:  yet  es 
sentially  different  (independent  of  difference  in 
merit)  from  both." 

The  Shakespearian  debt  thus  hinted  at  is  consid 
erable.  As  in  "Macbeth,"  so  here  the  guilty  pair 
plan  the  destruction  of  an  innocent  sleeper. 
Henry's  hesitation,  Matilda's  incitement,  and  his 
remorse  are  of  Shakespearian  origin.  After  the 
deed,  Matilda  exclaims: 


1 45 

"Henry,  go  wash  thy  hands 
And  shift  thy  clothes,  perchance  some  blood  is 
on  them  ?" 

Henry  replies: 

"Will  water  wash  these  clean?"15 
— a  close  parallel  to  the  dialogue  in  "Macbeth," 
Act  II,  Scene  II.  Shakespeare's  banquet  scene  is 
strongly  suggested  in  Act  IV.  When  Leicester  is 
first  seen  after  the  murder,  Henry  is  in  a  frenzy. 
Matilda  tries  to  be  calm,  assuring  her  husband  that 
Henry  is  unwell. 

The  obligation  to  the  "Agamemnon"  of  y£schy- 
lus  is  equally  obvious.  Both  Clytemnestra  and 
Matilda  conceive  a  profound  hatred  for  their  hus 
bands  because  of  past  offenses.  Both  women  live 
in  adultery  while  their  husbands  are  absent  at  war, 
and  slay  them  on  their  return. 

"Leicester"  obeys  implicitly  the  three  unities,  yet 
in  its  medieval  setting  and  in  the  freedom  of  its 
action  it  marks  something  of  a  break  from  the  tra 
dition  which  had  dominated  American  drama  since 
its  inception.  "The  Prince  of  Parthia,"  "The  Bat 
tle  of  Bunker's-Hill,"  "The  Death  of  Montgom 
ery,"  "The  Patriot  Chief,"  "The  Sack  of  Rome," 
and  "The  Ladies  of  Castile"  are  all  examples  of 
the  formal  eighteenth  century  species  of  tragedy. 
"Leicester"  may  be  classified  as  a  semi-romantic 
tragedy,  the  product  of  many  influences,  namely: 
the  Elizabethan  revenge  tragedy,  the  tragedy  of 
fate,  such  semi-romantic  tragedies  as  Home's 

«  Act  III. 


1 46  JMIiani  SDunfop 

"Douglas"  (1757),  which  was  long  a  favorite  here, 
and  the  recent  Gothic  plays. 

It  is  written  in  a  blank  verse  which  is  more 
poetic  and  more  nearly  adequate  than  anything 
before  it  in  this  country.  The  story  is  told  with 
considerable  skill  throughout,  and  in  the  murder 
scene  with  more  intensity  and  power  than  can  be 
found  previously  in  American  drama.  Matilda  and 
Henry  are  the  most  lifelike  tragic  figures  that  our 
writers  had  yet  produced.  To  be  sure,  the  play 
is  loosely  put  together,  and  the  action  is  often 
unmotivated,  yet  in  force  and  stage  effectiveness 
"Leicester"  was  the  best  native  tragedy  up  to  its 
time.  The  following  scene  from  Act  III  is  far 
superior  to  anything  which  preceded,  and  Dunlap 
himself  never  surpassed  it : 

Enter  Matilda  and  Henry. 
Mat.    Softly.    I'll  steal  and  listen  at  the  door. 
Hen.    [aside]  'T  is  a  hellish  purpose.     I  ne'er 

shall  do  it. 
Mat.    He's  not  asleep.     Methinks  I  heard  him 

sigh. 

Hen.    He  dreams  of  murder. 
Mat.  Henry,  what  mean'st  thou  ? 

Remember  that  Matilda's  life's  at  stake, 
Nor  let  thy  fancy  conjure  forms  of  horror, 
To  fill  thy  mind,  and  turn  thee  from  thy  purpose. 

Hen.    O,  no !  one  image  doth  possess  me  all : 
A  coward,  stealing  on  the  hour  of  sleep, — 
Of  peaceful  sleep, — stabbing  the  man  that  loves 
him. 


€l)e  Original  plap£  1 4  7 

Mat.    O,  spare  me,  Henry !  cease  such  thoughts 
as  these — 

Hen.  If  he  must  die,  to-morrow  will  I  meet  him ; 
Then,  as  he  views  his  ample  fields  alone, 
Or  haply  roams,  by  me  alone  attended, 
I  will  to  single  combat  challenge  him ; 
Sword  meeting  sword,  on  equal  terms  we'll  strive, 
And  he,  or  Cecil,  fall. 

Mat.  No ;  thou  canst  not 

Mean  it.    Enough !    Matilda  sees  her  fate ! 

Hen.    I  will  do  it ;  I  will  no  more  trouble  thee. 
I  see  the  dreadful,  damn'd  necessity 
For  murder.    And  now  come  forth,  my  unflesh'd 
sword !  [Draws. 

When  my  brave  father  tied  thee  to  my  side, 
Twas  not  for  deeds  like  this.    But  it  must  be. 
Thou  shalt  drink  noble  blood.    Angel  of  death ! 
Guide  thou  the  point,  and  let  me  not  strike  twice ! 
Mat.    Blood  not  thy  sword ;  mischief  to  us  may 

follow. 
I  have  procur'd — a — 

[Hesitates,   trembles,   and   draws  forth   a 
concealed  weapon.] 

Hen.  [snatching  it]   'Tis  well ;  I  thank  thee ! 
Why  ay,  I  thank  thee ;  this  doth  look  like  murder. 

[Puts  up  his  sword. 
Is  he  asleep  ? 

Mat.  [listening]    Softly.    I  hear  no  noise. 
Hark !  he  did  stir.    No,  'twas  the  passing  wind 
Did  move  the  window.    Tread  lightly  as  thou 
enter'st. 


1 48  IDill  iam  Dunlap 

If  he  should  wake  ?    Alas !  I'm  wild  with  horrid 
Apprehension.    Henry,  thou  shak'st  again. 

Hen.    Do  I?    Not  much.     Fear  nothing — wait 

thou  there — 
Pr'ythee  let  none  come  near  while  it  is  doing. 

[Partly  in  the  room. 
Mat.    Why  dost  thou  not  go  in  ? 
Hen.  'Tis  light. 

Mat.  [in  great  terror}  Henry ! 

Hen.    I  dare  to  do,  but  dare  not  see  it  done. 
Mat.    Ruin. 

Hen.    O  no,  Matilda !    I  cannot  do 
A  deed  of  darkness  in  the  face  of  day ! 

[  Throws  down  the  dagger. 

Mat.    I  will  not  urge  thee  further,  Henry  Cecil : 
If  thou  wouldst  give  me  up,  why  should  I  live? 
Hen.    Nay,  nay ;  but  then  to  see  him  when 

I  do  it : 

Think,  think  of  that ;  to  look  upon  his  face — 
Upon  the  face  of  him  so  lov'd,  so  injur'd ; 
And  plunge  yon  weapon  in  the  honest  heart 
Which  teems  with  thoughts  to  serve  me! 

[She  covers  her  face  with  an  action   of 
despair  and  horror.} 

Look  not  so. 
I'll  do  it.    [Takes  up  dagger  wildly.}    Do  thou  but 

only  shut  the  light, 

And,  when  his  heart  beats  upward  to  my  hand, 
I'll  meet  it  with  my  dagger. 

Mat.  Hold  thee  firm. 

But  one  small  window  dimly  lights  the  room ; 
That  from  within  the  castle  I  can  reach, 
All  unperceived. 


€lje  Original  $Iap0  1 49 

Hen.  [with  the  eagerness  of  despair]   I  pr'ythee 
do  it  then. 

Mat.    When  I  shall  knock  twice  on  the  window- 
board, —  [Fault ering. 
Then— Henry— then—  [  Exit. 

Hen.  Yes ;  I  will  go  on ; 

Repentance  and  retreat  are  now  denied  me; 
Hell  has  ensnar'd — by  Heaven  I  am  forsaken. 
'Twas  not  a  wayward  fancy  led  me  from 
My  brother's  roof,  and  happy  native  fields ; 
Alas !  all  innocent,  was  I  driven  forth 
To  fate,  a  lamb-like  victim  mark'd  for  destruction, 
Doom'd  before  my  birth  to  horrible  perdition ! 

Dud.  [in  the  room  as  in  sleep}    O,  Cecil! 

Hen.  Hark! 

Dud.  O,  Cecil !    O,  my  brother ! 

Hen.    Some  pitying  spirit  breaks  through 

Nature's  laws, 

And,  unembodied,  forms  these  solemn  sounds 
Articulate,  to  warn  me  from  the  deed. 
Perhaps  Lord  Cecil,  from  this  world  releas'd, 
Yet  hovering  near,  with  agonized  cries 
Would  stay  my  hand,  and  save  my  sinking  soul. 
It  is  too  late.    What  noise  ?    Sure  he  has  wak'd ! 
No — I  wish  he  had.    He  never  must  wake  more ! 
Again.    It  was  the  shutting  out  the  light. 
Once,  twice ;  she  knocks.    Why  then  prepare  thee, 

Henry. 

I  shall  not  knock  so  gently  at  thy  breast, 
O  Lei'ster !   Now,  now  to  the  dark,  dark  deed. 

[Exit  into  the  chamber. 


150  J©iliiam  Dunlap 

As  in  the  case  of  "Darby's  Return,"  O'Keeffe 
furnished  the  suggestion  for  a  return  interlude, 
"Shelty's  Travels"  (1794),  Shelty  being  the  scape 
goat  in  the  then  popular  "Highland  Reel."  Dun- 
lap's  piece  was  not  printed,  but  the  following 
synopsis  of  it  from  the  "New  York  Daily  Gazette" 
of  April  23,  1794,  gives  some  idea  of  its  contents : 

"Leaves  the  Isle  of  Coll,  Arrival  in  London, 
Meets  O'Keefe,  and  lives  by  Story-Telling;  Ban 
ishment  to  Botany  Bay;  escapes  and  hides  on 
board  a  Vessel  bound  to  New- York;  Meets  an 
Algerine;  Arrival  in  New- York;  Peeps  into  the 
Museum,  Play-House,  &c.  Conclusion." 

The  clause,  "Meets  an  Algerine,"  is  the  point  of 
interest.  This  episode  was  the  first  dramatic  men 
tion  of  the  trouble  with  the  Barbary  States,  which 
later  was  to  instigate  a  series  of  plays.  Morocco, 
Algiers,  Tripoli,  and  Tunis  at  this  time  were  nests 
of  pirates,  who  jeopardized  Mediterranean  trade 
by  their  constant  depredations.  Their  earliest 
offense  against  the  United  States  occurred  in 
October,  1784.  In  1785  several  Americans  were 
captured  and  sold  into  slavery.  The  continuance 
of  such  outrages  led  to  a  futile  war,  which  lasted 
from  1801  to  1805.  At  the  time  when  "Shelty's 
Travels"  was  written,  this  country  was  especially 
indignant  owing  to  the  increasing  violence  of  these 
offenses.16  About  a  month  after  Dunlap's  inter 
lude,  Mrs.  Susannah  Rowson's  "Slaves  in  Algiers" 

16  ''History  of  the  War  between  the  United  States  and 
Tripoli,"  Salem,  1806,  pp.  41,  48,  67. 


€l)e  Original  $lap£  1 5 1 

was  acted.  Thereafter  the  Mediterranean  corsairs 
reappeared  but  once  in  American  drama  until  after 
Captain  Decatur's  successful  quelling  of  the  pirates 
in  i8i5.17 

"Fontainville  Abbey,"  our  author's  next  play, 
was  an  innovation,  as  a  synopsis  of  the  plot  will 
show. 

Act  I.  Scene :  The  hall  of  a  ruined  Gothic  abbey. 
La  Motte,  fleeing  the  law  against  debtors,  has  taken 
refuge  here  with  his  wife  and  a  fair  unknown.  The 
beauteous  Adeline,  we  learn  from  their  conversa 
tion,  was  forced  upon  him,  on  the  way  to  the 
abbey,  by  a  ruffian,  who  at  the  point  of  a  pistol  or 
dered  him  to  remove  her  forever  from  his  sight. 

Act  II.  Enter  the  Marquis  de  Montalt,  owner 
of  the  abbey,  whom  La  Motte  recognizes  as  an  old 
enemy.  Struck  with  the  beauty  of  Adeline,  the 
Marquis  forces  from  La  Motte  a  promise  to  be 
tray  her  to  his  lust. 

Act  III.  A  dark,  antique  chamber.  Night. 
Adeline  finds  a  rusty  dagger,  a  skeleton  in  an  old 
chest,  and  a  parchment  revealing  a  crime.  In  an 
other  scene,  the  Marquis  bribes  La  Motte  to  do 
away  with  the  girl  for  some  reason  which  he  does 
not  divulge. 

17  Later  Algerine  plays  were  "The  American  Captive ; 
or,  Siege  of  Tripoli"  (1812),  James  Ellison;  "The  Young 
Carolinians;  or,  Americans  in  Algiers"  (1818),  anon.; 
"The  Siege  of  Tripoli"  (1820),  M.  M.  Noah;  "The  Siege 
of  Algiers ;  or,  The  Downfall  of  Hadgi-Ali-Bashaw" 
(1823),  J.  S.  Smith;  "The  Fall  of  Algiers"  (n.  d.),  J.  H. 
Payne;  "The  Usurper;  or,  Americans  in  Tripoli"  (c. 
1842),  J.  Jones. 


1 5  2  iSHlliam  SDuntoj) 

Act  IV.  Midnight.  La  Motte  approaches  the 
sleeping  beauty  to  stab  her.  But  his  courage  fails. 
He  throws  away  his  dagger,  and  swears  to  forsake 
his  evil  ways.  The  next  morning  Adeline  explains 
that  on  the  previous  day  the  Marquis  had  seen  a 
handkerchief  of  hers,  containing  a  certain  seal, 
which  had  thrown  him  into  a  panic. 

Act  V.  A  court  of  justice.  The  Marquis  ac 
cuses  La  Motte  of  robbery.  But  the  accused  re 
veals  the  conspiracy  against  Adeline,  and  produces 
the  parchment.  The  Marquis  now  discloses  the 
fact  that  Adeline  is  the  daughter  of  his  brother, 
whom  he  had  murdered  years  before  for  his  prop 
erty.  He  had  bribed  the  ruffian  of  Act  I  to  rear 
her,  and  had  recently  ordered  her  death.  The 
Marquis  is  led  to  execution,  while  La  Motte  is  ac 
quitted. 

"Fontainville  Abbey"  is  graced  with  an  epilogue 
spoken  by  Cupid,  who  complains  that  this  author 
has  twice  banished  him  from  his  plays.  He  quotes 
the  dramatist  thus : 

"Too  long,"  says  he,  "has  Love  usurp'd  the 

boards : 

The  tragic  scene  a  wider  scope  affords: 
Each  passion  in  its  turn  the  mind  should  move. 
Shakespeare's  best  plays  gain  not  their  force 

from  Love." 

But  though  Cupid  may  lose  the  tragic  throne,  he 
will  still  reign  supreme  in  comedy, 

"For  Love  and  Hymen  ever  are  her  theme." 


1 5  3 

The  preface  reads: 

"This  tragedy,  founded  on  Mrs.  RadclifTe's 
Romance  of  the  Forest,  was  written  in  the  year 
1794.  It  was  first  performed  in  the  year  1795,  and 
with  complete  success.  Mr.  Boaden's  play  of 
Fontainville  Forest  must  have  been  performed 
about  the  same  time  in  London." 

Boaden's  play,  also  based  on  the  novel,  was  printed 
in  1794,  and  this  adaptation  probably  called  Dun- 
lap's  attention  to  the  theatrical  possibilities  of  Mrs. 
RadclifTe's  book.  That  he  was  familiar  with 
"Fontainville  Forest"  is  pretty  definitely  proved 
by  the  fact  that  both  dramas  give  the  name  of 
Hortensia  to  Madame  La  Motte,  whereas  in  the 
novel  she  is  called  Constance.  But  here  the  evi 
dence  of  borrowing  ends.  Dunlap's  plot  contains 
few  episodes  not  found  in  Mrs.  RadclifTe's  work, 
but  of  necessity  he  omits  many  of  her  incidents, 
and  thus  simplifies  the  narrative.  The  main  al 
terations  are  the  omission  of  a  lover  for  Adeline, 
and  of  the  adventures  in  which  she  is  involved 
with  him  and  the  substitution  of  acquittal  of  La 
Motte  for  banishment. 

Dunlap  was  the  first  American  writer  to  take 
a  visible  part  in  the  so-called  Gothic  revival. 
Whether  Charles  Brockden  Brown  was  respon 
sible  for  his  interest  in  the  movement,  or  vice 
versa,  at  any  rate  Dunlap's  initial  effort  in  this  di 
rection  appeared  four  years  before  that  of  his 
friend.  As  everybody  knows,  eighteenth  century 
terroristic  literature  was  inaugurated  by  Horace 


1 54  IBflliam  2DunIap 

Walpole's  "Castle  of  Otranto"  (1764),  an  un 
blushing  tale  of  marvels  and  supernatural  phenom 
ena.  Walpole's  most  gifted  disciple  was  Mrs. 
Ann  Radcliffe,  who  in  "The  Romance  of  the  For 
est"  (1791)  and  other  novels  attempted  to  create 
an  atmosphere  of  terror  without  resorting  to  the 
cheap  claptrap  of  ghosts,  animated  portraits,  etc. 
Dunlap  imitated  Mrs.  Radcliffe  in  method  as  well 
as  in  plot.  Like  her,  he  presented  a  series  of  mys 
terious  incidents,  apparently  arising  from  a  super 
natural  cause,  but  followed  shortly  by  a  natural 
explanation. 

"Fontainville  Abbey"  was  more  thoroughly 
Gothic  than  any  of  its  dramatic  precursors  in  Eng 
land.  Such  plays  as  Jephson's  "Count  of  Nar- 
bonne"  and  Cumberland's  "Carmelite"  were 
Gothic  only  in  their  gruesomeness  and  in  the  mys 
tery  in  which  certain  characters  were  enveloped. 
Dunlap  took  much  greater  pains  to  emphasize  the 
setting;  he  carefully  located  each  scene  in  unmis 
takably  Gothic  surroundings.  Such  startling  de 
vices  as  skeletons,  blood-rusted  daggers,  subter 
ranean  passages,  and  howling  storms  were  freely 
introduced.  In  the  use  of  terroristic  machinery  he 
was  not  a  little  like  that  incomparable  Gothic 
dramatist,  Matthew  Gregory  Lewis,  whose  famous 
"Castle  Spectre"  did  not  make  its  appearance  until 
four  years  after  "Fontainville  Abbey"  was  written. 

Aside  from  its  importance  in  the  beginnings  of 
American  Gothicism,  this  piece  has  another  claim 
to  consideration.  As  we  have  already  seen, 
"Leicester"  departed  to  a  large  extent  from  the 


<Ei)e  Original  $iap£  1 5  5 

eighteenth  century  model,  though  still  adhering  to 
the  unities.  "Fontainville  Abbey"  broke  entirely 
from  this  formal  restraint,  and  became  wholly  and 
frankly  a  romantic  tragi-comedy.  As  such  it  had 
but  one  predecessor,  Mrs.  Rowson's  "Slaves  in 
Algiers,"  acted  a  few  months  before.  Dunlap's 
deliberate  turning  to  the  romantic  type,  exemplified 
in  his  first  two  serious  plays,  undoubtedly  acted  as 
one  of  the  potent  checks  on  conventional  tragedy, 
for  after  1795  that  species  almost  disappeared 
from  the  United  States. 

William  Dunlap's  chief  contribution  to  Ameri 
can  opera  was  "The  Archers ;  or,  Mountaineers  of 
Switzerland"  (1796).  English  opera  (that  is,  a 
form  of  play  with  songs  interspersed)  was  enjoy 
ing  continued  favor  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic, 
and  he  knew  that  an  imitation  would  be  acceptable 
in  New  York. 

"The  Archers"  is  preceded  by  a  prologue  con 
trasting  true  and  false  liberty. 

Act  I.  The  Swiss,  suffering  under  the  oppres 
sion  of  Gesler,  the  Austrian  governor,  are  prepar 
ing  to  revolt.  Rhodolpha,  the  Diana-like  daughter 
of  Walter  Furst,  joins  the  rebels  with  her  band  of 
fifty  Amazons. 

Act  II.  The  people  are  compelled  to  kneel  to 
the  governor's  hat,  placed  on  a  pole  before  the 
castle.  Rhodolpha  humiliates  a  fat  burgomaster 
who  attempts  to  force  her  obedience  to  the  order. 
William  Tell  preaches  resistance,  and  is  arrested. 

Act  III.    Tell  saves  his  life  by  shooting  the  ap- 


1 5 6  UDilliam  SDunlap 

pie  from  his  son's  head.  By  dint  of  great  daring, 
he  succeeds  in  killing  Gesler.  Then  follows  a 
pitched  battle  against  the  Austrians,  in  which  the 
Swiss,  led  by  Tell  and  assisted  by  Rhodolpha  and 
her  band,  are  victorious. 

To  the  play  is  subjoined  a  brief  historical  ac 
count  of  Switzerland,  from  its  first  mention  by 
Caesar,  through  the  revolution. 

In  the  preface  the  author  stated  that  two  years 
before,  an  anonymous  English  opera,  "Helvetic 
Liberty,"  was  given  him  to  adapt  to  our  stage. 
Liking  the  subject,  but  finding  the  piece  "incor 
rigible,"  he  composed  "The  Archers."  He  ad 
mitted  borrowing  the  burgomaster,  an  Austrian 
lieutenant,  and  Rhodolpha  from  "Helvetic  Lib 
erty,"  but  added,  "The  other  similarities  are  the 
necessary  consequences  of  being  both  founded  on 
the  same  historic  fact."  His  debt,  however,  was 
somewhat  larger  than  this  statement  implies.  His 
outline  is  strictly  that  of  the  earlier  play,  and  since 
history  is  equally  violated  in  both,  it  is  obvious  that 
Dunlap  got  the  skeleton  of  his  plot  from  "Helvetic 
Liberty"  rather  than  from  the  "historic  fact."  His 
chief  alterations  were  a  minimizing  of  the  heroine's 
love  affairs,  and  the  addition  of  two  humorous 
peasants. 

It  is  to  be  questioned  whether  the  American 
dramatist  improved  much  on  his  "incorrigible" 
model.  "The  Archers"  is  devoid  of  anything  like 
character  drawing  or  intensity  of  effect.  Never 
theless  it  furnishes  opportunity  for  scenery,  love- 
making,  and  martial  pomp,  the  chief  requirements 


€&*  Original  plapg  1 5  7 

of  a  musical  play;  so  a  theatrical  success  might 
have  been  expected.  Mr.  Sonneck  has  said :  "Dun- 
lap  was  not  a  master-poet,  but  merely  a  dramati 
cally  gifted  stage-manager.  However,  it  would  be 
unjust  to  deny  The  Archers'  some  forcible  mono 
logues  and  skilfully  contrasted  scenes."18  Hoi- 
croft's  verdict  was  this:  "It  [The  Archers'] 
proves  you  have  made  some  progress;  but  it 
likewise  proves,  as  far  as  I  am  a  judge,  that 
much  remains  for  you  to  accomplish.  Common 
thoughts,  common  characters,  and  common  sensa 
tions  have  little  attraction.  ...  If  you  would  at 
tain  the  high  gifts  after  which  you  so  virtuously 
aspire,  your  perseverance  must  be  energetic  and 
unremitting."19 

If  a  play  be  acted  under  the  title  of  "The  Mys 
terious  Monk"  (1796),  and  printed  as  "Ribbe- 
mont ;  or,  The  Feudal  Baron,"  one  is  not  surprised 
to  encounter  some  such  plot  as  this : 

Act  I.  An  antique  castle.  Ribbemont  believes 
he  has  poisoned  his  wife,  the  Countess  Honoria, 
and  in  a  duel  killed  Narbonne,  the  man  whom  he 
was  led  to  suspect  of  adultery  with  her. 

Act  II.  The  Countess  is  discovered  living  in 
a  Gothic  chapel,  cared  for  by  Manuel,  a  priest. 
Manuel  tells  her  that  he  caused  a  sleeping  potion 
to  be  substituted  for  the  poison  which  Ribbemont 
intended  to  administer.  In  another  scene  Ribbe- 

18  "Early  Opera  in  America/'  p.  98. 

19  From  a  letter  to  Dunlap  quoted  in  "American  The 
atre,"  p.  160. 


1 5  8  JBilliam  2DunIap 

mont  receives  a  letter  which  explains  that  an 
enemy  has  duped  him  into  believing  his  wife  guilty. 
The  son,  Theodore,  sets  out  to  avenge  the  wrong. 

Act  III.  Manuel,  perceiving  Ribbemont's  deep 
contrition,  is  on  the  point  of  revealing  the  truth, 
when  word  is  received  that  Theodore  has  killed 
the  enemy,  and  is  now  in  prison  awaiting  execu 
tion. 

Act  IV.  The  Baron  visits  Theodore  in  prison. 
The  son  begs  his  father  to  supply  him  with  poison, 
that  he  may  not  be  disgraced  by  a  public  execution. 

Act  V.  Ribbemont  brings  the  poison,  and  both 
are  on  the  point  of  suicide  when  the  cry  of  " Par 
don  !"  is  heard.  The  Countess  and  Manuel  rush  in, 
and  a  reconciliation  follows.  Manuel  now  throws 
off  his  cowl  and  reveals  Narbonne,  who  had  sur 
vived  the  duel  and  assumed  this  disguise  to  protect 
the  Countess.20 

From  this  outline  it  is  seen  that  "Ribbemont" 
is  another  Gothic  drama  of  the  "Fontainville  Ab 
bey"  type.  It  is  as  free  from  actual  supernatural- 
ism  as  the  other,  but  its  setting,  its  mysteries, 
and  its  wide  departure  from  reality  are  hall 
marks  of  the  terroristic  school.  In  the  art  of  play- 
making  "Ribbemont"  shows  no  advance  over  its 
author's  previous  productions.  Unmotivated,  un 
convincing,  and  filled  with  lifeless  figures,  it  has 

20  In  "American  Theatre,"  p.  155,  Dunlap  said :  "It  may 
be  remarked  that  the  fable  of  this  play  can  be  traced  in 
Tobin's  posthumous  drama  of  The  Curfew,  written  many 
years  after."  "The  Curfew,"  acted  in  London,  1807,  tells 
a  similar  story,  for  which  it  may  have  been  indebted  to 
the  American  piece. 


Clje  Original  §Map£  159 

few  redeeming  features.  Dunlap  himself  spoke 
disparagingly  of  it:  "The  play  is  not  skilfully 
managed."  "The  characters  and  incidents  were 
not  in  sufficient  number,  and  the  piece  ...  is  long 
since  forgotten."21  The  blank  verse,  which  shows 
a  careful  study  of  Shakespeare,  is  superior  to  the 
average  of  that  time,  but  the  conventionally  the 
atrical  and  useless  speeches  are  too  numerous  to 
allow  the  style  any  claim  to  excellence. 

"The  Man  of  Fortitude ;  or,  The  Knight's  Ad 
venture"  (1797)  seems  to  have  occasioned  a  con 
troversy  between  the  director  of  the  theatre  and 
the  star  actor.  In  the  "History  of  the  American 
Theatre"  we  find  this  passage : 

"The  person  we  have  designated  the  American 
manager,  had  written  a  piece  in  one  act  for  the 
stage,  and  called  it  The  Knight's  Adventure/  It 
was  in  blank  verse.  He  left  it  with  Mr.  Hodgkin- 
son,  and  it  was  almost  forgotten,  when  Hodgkin- 
son  told  him  that  he  had  written  a  play,  and  called 
it  The  Man  of  Fortitude.'  This  was  the  whole  of 
The  Knight's  Adventure,'  partly  in  prose,  with  the 
addition  of  a  comic  buffoon,  and  a  lady.  The  au 
thor  of  the  piece  remarked  this  to  Hodgkinson, 
who  did  not  deny  it,  only  said  he  had  'altered 
everything,'  and  truly  everything  was  altered.  .  .  . 
The  other  laughed  and  asked  for  his  one-act  piece, 
but  it  was  not  forthcoming.  .  .  .  We  scarcely  be 
lieve  the  author  was  conscious  of  wrong  in  the 

21  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  154-5- 


160  nEttHtam  SDunlaj 

transaction,  as  far  as  injury  to  another  was  con 
cerned."22 

Just  what  share  in  the  finished  play  each  man 
had,  cannot  now  be  determined,  but  Dunlap  must 
have  felt  that  it  was  largely  his,  because  he  in 
cluded  it  in  the  prospectus  of  his  ten-volume  edi 
tion.23  The  finished  plot  is  replete  with  thrills. 

Act  I.  Scene :  France.  Time :  Evening.  A  storm 
rages  on  a  gloomy  heath  with  an  accompaniment 
of  thunder  and  lightning.  Sir  Bertrand  and  his 
valet  are  seeking  shelter.  From  peasants  they 
learn  of  a  haunted  castle  in  a  forest  not  far  dis 
tant.  The  scene  shifts  to  the  castle.  The  storm 
continues.  Blue  lights  flicker  before  the  windows. 
A  bell  tolls.  At  Bertrand's  approach,  the  door 
flies  open.  Within,  a  bloody  spectre  beckons  to 
the  knight,  who  draws  his  sword,  whereupon  the 
floor  parts,  and  both  disappear.  The  valet  is 
seized  by  furies  and  spirited  away. 

Act  II.  A  subterranean  cavern.  The  spectres, 
having  removed  their  disguises,  now  appear  as  rob 
bers.  The  captain,  against  the  remonstrances  of 
his  band,  inclines  to  mercy.  He  confesses  to  Ber 
trand  his  love  for  a  female  prisoner,  who  spurns 
his  advances.  The  lady  is  produced  and  proves  to 
be  Sir  Bertrand's  bride,  stolen  on  their  wedding- 
day.  The  captain,  holding  this  to  be  a  ruse,  orders 
that  the  knight  be  tortured. 

Act    III.     Bertrand   is   placed   on   the   wheel. 

22  p.  171. 

23  See  ante,  p.  85  n. 


€fje  Original  $lap£  1 6 1 

Hortensia  offers  to  yield  to  the  captain's  desire, 
but  as  he  approaches  her  she  draws  a  dagger  and 
prepares  to  stab  him.  Overwhelmed  by  her  hero 
ism  and  devotion,  he  relents  and  frees  both.  Ber- 
trand  now  promises  a  royal  pardon. 

It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  Dunlap's  original 
plot  was  not  greatly  different  from  this,  with  the 
exception  of  the  Hortensia  element.  The  spectres 
and  banditti  are  undoubtedly  his.  Here  again  is 
a  Gothic  tragi-comedy,  which  eliminates  the  super 
natural  by  solving  all  the  mysteries, — Mrs.  Rad- 
cliffe's  method  once  more. 

The  central  idea  of  Dunlap's  one-act  piece — the 
supposedly  haunted  castle,  inhabited  by  robbers, 
who  threaten  but  spare  the  life  of  the  hero — was 
unquestionably  taken  from  "Caleb  Williams."  In 
Chapters  XXVIII  and  XXIX  of  Godwin's  novel, 
Caleb  falls  among  thieves,  whose  den  is  a  ruined 
castle  in  a  forest  near  a  deserted  heath.  The 
superstitious  peasantry  believe  the  ruin  haunted, 
because  of  the  lights  and  nocturnal  revelry.  The 
hero's  life  is  threatened  by  certain  members  of  the 
gang,  but  the  leader,  Raymond,  saves  him.  Be 
tween  Raymond  and  the  captain  in  the  play  there 
is  an  important  parallel.  Both  outlaws  took  up 
arms  against  society  in  their  rage  over  the  iniquity 
of  the  ruling  class  and  the  inequality  of  the  laws. 

Dunlap's  bandit  plot,  however,  was  not  due 
solely  to  "Caleb  Williams."  It  was  one  of  the 
numerous  offspring  of  "Die  Rauber."  This  drama 
of  the  youthful  Schiller  emerged  from  the  press  in 
1781,  and  immediately  became  famous  all  over 


1 62  i&iHiam  2DunIap 

Europe.  Its  protagonist  is  Karl  Moor,  who,  hav 
ing  fallen  into  loose  ways  at  the  university,  is  dis 
inherited  by  his  father.  Thereupon  the  desperate 
youth  places  himself  at  the  head  of  a  robber  band. 
After  a  career  of  outlawry,  he  repents  and  sur 
renders  himself  to  justice. 

The  earliest  English  imitation  of  "Die  Rauber" 
was  O'Keeffe's  "Castle  of  Andalusia,"  which  be 
gan  a  brilliant  run  at  Covent  Garden  in  I782.24  In 
this  light  opera,  Don  Casar  has  been  driven  to 
lawlessness  by  the  persecution  of  his  father.  In 
the  end  he  renounces  his  bandit  life.  Another  ap 
parent  imitation  was  "Robin  Hood ;  or,  Sherwood 
Forest"  (1784),  an  opera  by  Leonard  MacNally. 
The  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  suffering  under  the  in 
justice  of  the  king,  takes  to  the  forest,  but  finally 
returns  to  lawful  ways.  "The  Battle  of  Hexham" 
(1789),  by  the  younger  Colman,  also  contains  a 
bandit  episode  involving  a  similar  idea.  To  Amer 
ica  the  robber  motif  was  introduced  by  "The 
Castle  of  Andalusia"  in  1788.  In  1793  Tytler's 
translation  of  "Die  Rauber,"  made  in  England  in 
1792,  was  reprinted  in  New  York.  "The  Battle  of 
Hexham"  was  acted  at  New  York  in  1794.  "Robin 
Hood"  was  given  twice  at  New  York  in  the  same 
year.  The  American  premiere  of  "The  Robbers" 
occurred  at  the  same  city  in  1795. 25  Our  earliest 
contribution  to  the  drama  of  outlawry  was  "Edwin 

24  Genest,  Vol.  VI,  p.  263. 

25  Seilhamer,  Vol.  II,  p.  242 ;  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  80-1,  108 ;  E. 
C.  Parry,  "German  American  Annals,"  new  series,  Vol. 
Ill,  p.  86;  C.  F.  Brede,  same  journal,  p.  257. 


€l)c  Original  Jfrtapg  1 63 

and  Angelina,"  an  opera  by  Elihu  Hubbard  Smith, 
performed  for  the  first  time  in  December,  1796, 
but  written  some  years  before.26  Here  recurs  the 
Schiller  formula  of  injustice  leading  to  a  bandit 
life,  with  the  repentance  and  reform  finale. 

With  such  antecedents,  the  source  of  the  robber 
theme  in  "The  Knight's  Adventure"  is  not  far  to 
seek.  Supposing  it  to  have  been  written  about 
1796,  Dunlap  had  opportunity  to  read  "Die  Rau- 
ber"  in  translation,  and  to  witness  it  on  the  stage, 
along  with  "The  Castle  of  Andalusia,"  "Robin 
Hood,"  and  "The  Battle  of  Hexham."  "Edwin 
and  Angelina,"  the  work  of  a  close  friend,  he  un 
doubtedly  saw  in  manuscript.  With  such  incen 
tives,  it  is  entirely  characteristic  of  Dunlap  that  he 
should  seize  on  the  striking  episode  in  Godwin's 
novel,  and  turn  it  into  a  drama.  "The  Man  of 
Fortitude"  was  the  second  American  robber  play 
to  appear  on  the  stage,  Smith's  opera  preceding  it 
by  a  few  months. 

In  1780  occurred  one  of  the  most  dramatic 
events  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  the  capture  of 
Major  John  Andre.  Because  of  the  possible  con 
sequences  involved  in  the  Arnold-Andre  con 
spiracy,  and  because  of  the  admirable  character  of 
the  British  spy,  the  effect  produced  by  the  incident 
was  most  profound.  Indeed,  ever  since,  it  has  oc 
cupied  a  place  in  the  American  mind  considerably 
out  of  proportion  to  its  historic  importance.  Play 
wrights  have  made  capital  of  it  over  and  over 

26  "American  Theatre,"  p.  156;  preface  to  the  opera. 


1 64  IMIiam  SDunlap 

again.27  Dunlap  was  not  the  first  to  dramatize 
the  theme,  but,  as  Professor  Brander  Matthews 
has  said:  "Of  all  the  plays  on  the  subject  of 
Arnold's  treason  and  Andre's  sad  fate,  the  'Andre' 
of  William  Dunlap  is  easily  best,  both  as  literature 
and  as  a  successful  acting  drama."28 

The  preface,  written  in  1798,  reads  in  part: 

"More  than  nine  years  ago  the  author  made 
choice  of  the  death  of  Major  Andre  as  the  subject 
of  a  Tragedy,  and  part  of  what  is  now  offered  to 
the  public  was  written  at  that  time.  Many  circum 
stances  discouraged  him  from  finishing  his  play, 
and  among  them  must  be  reckoned  a  prevailing 
opinion  that  recent  events  are  unfit  subjects  for 
tragedy." 

The  prologue  apologizes  for  violating  this 
opinion  and  for  altering  the  historic  facts.  A 
judgment  of  the  play  on  its  own  merits,  unpreju 
diced  by  party  spirit,  is  requested. 

Act  I.  Andre  has  been  captured,  and  is 
awaiting  execution.  Capt.  Bland,  an  American 
officer,  resolves  to  aid  the  doomed  man  if  possible, 
out  of  gratitude  for  his  assistance  when  Bland 
was  a  British  prisoner. 

Act  II.    The  prison.   Andre,  solus,  laments  the 

27  See  Seilhamer,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  12,  363 ;  "Andre,"  Pub 
lications  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  No.  4,  1887,  introduction. 
In  addition,  "Major  Andre,"  by  Clyde  Fitch,  should  be 
mentioned. 

28  "Andre,"  Publications  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  intro 
duction,  p.  xxiv. 


1 65 

disgrace  which  has  fallen  on  him.  Bland  enters 
and  declares  he  shall  not  die.  The  spy  asks  only 
that  the  sentence  be  altered  from  hanging  to 
shooting. 

Act  III.  Bland  pleads  with  Washington  (des 
ignated  as  the  General)  for  the  life  of  his 
friend,  but  without  avail.  In  his  wrath  he  tears 
the  cockade  from  his  helmet.  Eland's  mother 
enters  the  camp  and  begs  that  Andre  be  spared  in 
order  to  save  her  husband,  who  is  held  by  the 
British  as  a  hostage  for  the  safety  of  the  captive. 

Act  IV.  Eland's  ire  flames  again,  and  he  in 
sults  his  superior  officer.  Honora,  Andre's  some 
time  fiancee,  who  has  come  from  England  seeking 
him,  enters  the  prison  and  faints  in  his  arms.  He 
had  been  led  by  her  father  to  believe  that  she  had 
married  another,  but  he  now  learns  of  the  de 
ception. 

Act  V.  Bland  apologizes  for  his  insubordina 
tion.29  Honora  beseeches  Washington  to  pardon 
her  lover.  Upon  his  refusal,  she  becomes  insane 
and  is  led  away  by  Mrs.  Bland.  In  the  final  scene 
Andre  goes  bravely  to  execution. 

In  an  appendix  to  the  play,  Dunlap  printed  a 
number  of  documents  which  show  the  relation  of 
the  tragedy  to  history.  We  learn  that  Andre  was 
once  engaged  to  Honora  Seward.  But  the  ro- 

29  The  preface  contains  twenty-nine  additional  lines  to 
be  inserted  here,  in  which  Bland  replaces  the  cockade,  de 
claring  that  he  will  wear  it  thenceforth  as  his  proudest 
ornament.  The  play  was  in  print  before  it  was  acted; 
hence  the  alteration  which  the  first  audience  seemed  to 
demand  could  not  be  inserted  in  the  text  itself. 


1 66  KMliam  SDunlap 

mance  was  blighted  by  parental  opposition,  and 
Honora  consoled  herself  by  marrying  another 
man.  There  are  some  letters  called  out  by  the 
trial.  In  one  of  these  Andre  requested  that  he 
be  shot  rather  than  hanged.  In  another  he  spoke 
of  certain  prisoners,  held  by  the  British  at  Charles 
ton,  whose  treatment  might  be  largely  affected  by 
his  own.  Dunlap,  then,  had  some  basis  for  the 
love  affair  with  Honora,  though  in  reality  it  took 
a  much  less  romantic  turn  than  in  the  drama.  The 
spy's  efforts  to  obtain  the  substitution  of  shooting 
for  hanging  were  founded  on  fact.  The  Elands 
were  invented  for  the  occasion,  but  the  idea  of  a 
hostage  was  probably  suggested  by  Andre's  ref 
erence  to  the  Charleston  prisoners. 

Several  plays  before  "Andre"  had  dealt  with 
American  history,  but  Dunlap's  tragjedy,  surpassed 
them  all.  In  general  the  early7  historical  dramas 
were  unusually  poor  affairs,  and  for  this  reason 
"Andre's"  modest  merit  may  be  easily  overesti 
mated.  Professor  Matthews  spoke  perhaps  too 
enthusiastically  when  he  said :  "  'Andre'  is  a  better 
piece  of  work  than  most  of  the  plays  even  of  high 
pretensions,  which  were  produced  in  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States  toward  the  end  of  the  last 
century."30  Yet  it  must  be  classed  among  the 
most  worthy  efforts  of  our  early  dramatists.  To  be. 
sure,  it  is  artificial  and  sentimentalj  but  pn_thej 
whole  it  is  rather  satisfying-.  The  characters  are, 
consistently  if  slightly  drawr^  The  tone  reaches'^. 

30  "Andre,"  Publications  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  intro 
duction,  p.  xiii. 


€l)e  Original  $lapg  1  6  7 

oertam  .  degree  ojf  intensity_Jn  places,  especially  jn_ 
Honora's  grief.    The  blankvery  is  even  am 
T    ni'f        JTPP  firTtlt^frr  rom  insa- 


That  Dunlap  knew  to  some  extent  and  admired 
Elizabethan  drama  is  proved  by  "The  Italian 
Father"  (1799).  In  the  preface  he  said:  "Those 
who  are  well  versed  in  old  english  dramatic  lit 
erature,  will  perceive  that  the  author  has  enriched 
his  work  from  those  obsolete  sources  without 
forfeiting  his  claim  to  originality  in  the  composi 
tion."  Dekker  it  was  whom  he  pressed  into 
service,  as  the  "History  of  the  American  Theatre" 
acknowledged.  But  the  borrowing  was  not  suffi 
cient  in  Dunlap's  eyes  to  destroy  his  pride  in  the 
play,  for  he  considered  this  to  be  his  best  dramatic 
achievement.31  Unfortunately,  a  comparison  of 
"The  Italian  Father"  with  "The  Honest  Whore," 
part  two,  reveals  an  amount  of  plagiarism  which 
leaves  him  only  a  meagre  remnant  to  call  his  own. 

Act  I.  Hippolito,  a  prominent  citizen  of  Milan, 
is  accosted  by  Astrabel  with  the  entreaty  that  he 
save  her  husband,  Beraldo,  condemned  to  die  for 
dueling.  Hippolito  learns  that  her  father,  Michael 
Brazzo,  has  disowned  her  for  unchastity. 

Act  II.  Beraldo  returns  from  prison,  having 
been  liberated  by  Hippolito  's  intercession.  Brazzo, 
disguised  as  a  servant,  enters  the  household  of 
his  daughter  in  order  to  study  her  and  to  help 
her  if  she  proves  worthy.  He  is  immediately  con- 

31  "American  Theatre,"  p.  266. 


1 68  H^ifliam  Dunlap 

vinced  that  Astrabel  has  reformed,  but  decides  to 
make  a  final  test.  For  this  purpose  he  induces 
Hippolito  to  tempt  her  to  incontinence  again. 

Act  III.  Hippolito  assails  her  chastity  by 
means  of  jewels  and  tender  epistles.  He  also 
sends  rich  gifts  to  Beraldo,  who  returns  them,  re 
fusing  to  sell  his  wife. 

Act  IV.  The  jealousy  of  Hippolito's  wife, 
Beatrice,  is  aroused  by  his  attentions  to  Astrabel, 
and  is  allayed  with  some  difficulty.  Beraldo  is  on 
the  point  of  fighting  with  Hippolito  over  the  honor 
of  Astrabel,  when  Brazzo  intervenes  and  explains 
that  it  was  all  a  test,  which  both  husband  and  wife 
have  stood  admirably. 

Act  V.  Brazzo,  satisfied  with  Astrabel's  con 
duct  and  convinced  of  her  love  for  him,  reveals 
himself  and  forgives  her. 

The  outline  of  the  play  was  taken  bodily  from 
"The  Honest  Whore."  Each  of  Dunlap's  characters 
has  an  exact  prototype  in  Dekker.  Hippolito  is 
Dekker's  Hippolito,  Beatrice  is  Infelice,  Astrabel 
is  Bellafront,  Beraldo  is  Matheo  (one  of  Dekker's 
minor  figures  is  called  Beraldo),  Brazzo  is  Or 
lando  Friscobaldo  (disguised  in  both  plays  as 
Pacheco}.  The  resemblance  is  especially  strong 
in  the  first  two  acts,  in  which  our  author  even  took 
sections  of  dialogue  verbatim  from  his  source. 
The  chief  departures  from  the  original  are  two: 
Dekker's  Hippolito  tempts  Bellafront  from  an 
evil  motive;  in  'The  Italian  Father"  the  tempta 
tion  is  only  a  test.  Matheo  is  a  thorough  rascal, 
who  at  the  end  is  saved  from  a  deserved  death  on 


3Tf)c  (Original  JMap£  1 69 

the  scaffold  only  by  the  intervention  of  Frisco- 
baldo;  Beraldo,  on  the  other  hand,  is  but  super 
ficially  bad.  Once  an  honorable  man,  he  has  been 
forced  by  circumstances  into  evil  ways;  in  the 
crisis  his  better  self  regains  the  ascendancy. 

Dunlap's  originality  asserted  itself  in  the  sub 
plot.  Abandoning  Dekker  altogether,  he  substi 
tuted  one  somewhat  suggestive  of  the  comic  ele 
ment  in  "Twelfth  Night."  Lodovico  (the  name 
from  Dekker),  a  merry  friend  of  Hippolito's,  de 
clares  his  passion  for  Leonora,  Beatrice's  maid. 
With  the  help  of  the  fool  she  leads  him  on,  only 
to  play  a  ridiculous  trick  on  him  in  the  end.  This 
sub-plot  is  pretty  good  humor,  quite  after  the 
Elizabethan  manner  both  in  its  farcical  vivacity 
and  its  word-play. 

With  all  respect  to  Dekker  be  it  said  that  in 
certain  respects  Dunlap  improved  on  his  source. 
"The  Italian  Father"  is  simpler  in  construction  and 
more  closely  knit,  because  several  superfluous 
characters  are  removed,  and  the  sub-plot  is  brought 
into  closer  relation  with  the  main  plot.  Dunlap's 
prose  diction  is  clearer  than  Dekker's  mixture  of 
prose,  rhyme,  and  blank  verse.  In  other  words 
the  American  playwright  used  his  well-developed 
technical  skill  to  reconstruct  the  piece  according 
to  the  canons  of  the  contemporary  stage.  The  re 
sult  was  a  theatrically  successful  drama.  But  in 
its  less  superficial  aspects  the  original  far  sur 
passes  the  imitation.  Friscobaldo  is  a  great 
character;  Brazzo  is  only  a  stage  figure.  Bella- 
front  is  a  very  human  woman;  Astrabel  is  a 


1 70  MDilliam  jBDunlap 

formal  echo.     Matheo  is  a  persistently  evil  man ; 
Beraldo  is  an  easily  manipulated  puppet. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  Dunlap 
should  have  turned  to  "The  Honest  Whore"  for 
dramatic  material.  It  is  an  example  of  Eliza 
bethan  sensibility,  though  uncontaminated  by  the 
mawkish,  lacrymose  sentimentality  that  deluged 
the  eighteenth  century  with  tears.  The  New  York 
playwright  saw  that  this  tale  of  family  distress 
and  reconciliation  was  congenial  to  the  taste  of 
his  time,  and  he  proceeded  to  adapt  it  to  his  the 
atre  with  certain  expurgations.  It  was  a  tenet  of 
the  sentimental  school  that  virtue  is  more  potent 
than  vice ;  that  a  good  man  is  always  good,  and  an 
evil  man  may  be  suddenly  and  violently  converted. 
According  to  this  philosophy  Dunlap  revised  "The 
Honest  Whore."  Hippolito's  fall  from  virtue  he 
deleted,  making  him  instead  a  constant  champion 
of  morals.  And  Beraldo,  unlike  his  prototype, 
undergoes  a  complete  change  of  heart. 

"Tristram  Shandy"  was  apparently  one  of  Dun- 
lap's  favorite  books,  for  ten  years  after  "The 
Father"  he  again  paid  it  the  tribute  of  adaptation. 
He  took,  as  the  foundation  for  his  second  play, 
an  incident  recorded  briefly  in  Chapter  XXIV  of 
the  last  book  of  Sterne's  eccentric  novel.  Maria, 
the  village  beauty,  having  lost  her  senses  when 
her  banns  were  forbidden,  now  sits  all  day  on  a 
bank,  plaintively  playing  on  her  pipe.  On  this 
slender  theme  Dunlap  constructed  an  opera, 
"Sterne's  Maria;  or,  The  Vintage," — with  what 


€l>e  Original  pap£  1 7 1 

success  it  is  impossible  to  say,  since  it  was  never 
printed.  Our  only  information  is  the  author's 
own  statement  that  the  dramatis  persona  included 
Yorick,  La  Fleur,  and  Nannette,  and  that  "the 
piece  pleased  and  was  pleasing."32  No  doubt 
sentimentality  was  not  the  least  conspicuous  ele 
ment. 

"Andre"  was  not  a  stage  success.  No  wonder, 
since  its  hero  was  a  British  spy.  Perhaps  Dun- 
lap  saw  the  paradox  and  felt  that  the  same  episode 
presented  from  the  American  standpoint  would 
have  a  greater  claim  to  popularity.  At  any  rate, 
in  1803  "The  Glory  of  Columbia— Her  Yeo 
manry  !"  again  dramatized  the  Arnold- Andre  con 
spiracy,  but  now  the  hero  was  the  American 
common  people,  and  the  appeal  was  made  frankly 
to  national  feeling.  Its  close  relation  to  the  earlier 
play  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  nine  of  the 
nineteen  scenes  were  taken  from  "Andre"  with 
little  or  no  alteration. 

Act  I.  Benedict  Arnold  is  meditating  treason. 
His  servant,  David  Williams,  suspecting  him  of 
disloyalty,  leaves  him.  Scene  III  abruptly  and  ir 
relevantly  introduces  Mrs.  Bland  and  her  children. 
In  Scene  IV  Arnold  and  Andre  meet  and  complete 
the  plot.  In  the  final  scene  Williams  and  his 
sister,  Sally,  are  set  upon  by  three  English  soldiers, 
but  the  unarmed  Americans  are  more  than  a  match 
for  them. 

Act  II.     Andre  is  captured  by  Paulding,  Van 

32  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  259-60. 


1 7 2  JBilliam  SDunlap 

Vert,  and  Williams?*  He  attempts  to  buy  his 
escape  with  the  offer  of  great  wealth,  but  the  yeo 
men  are  bribe-proof.  The  remainder  of  the  act  is 
taken  up  with  the  praise  of  Washington  and  other 
patriots,  and  with  Sally's  attempt  to  disguise  her 
self  as  a  soldier. 

Act  III.  Capt.  Bland  intercedes  with  Wash 
ington  for  the  life  of  the  spy.  The  unfortunate 
cockade  episode  is  omitted.  This  act  is  composed 
entirely  of  scenes  from  different  parts  of  "Andre." 

Act  IV  is  made  up  of  the  escapades  of  an  Irish 
man  who  deserts  the  British,  and  of  the  Honora 
incidents. 

Act  V.  Washington  exhorts  the  soldiers  to 
make  one  final  effort  and  all  is  won.  Scene  II 
represents  the  battle  of  Yorktown.  After  much 
cannonading  the  Americans  gain  the  victory.  All 
join  in  a  hymn  in  praise  of  God  and  Washington. 
"A  transparency  descends,  and  an  eagle  is  seen 
suspending  a  crown  of  laurel  over  the  head  of  the 
commander-in-chief,  with  this  motto— 'Immortal 
ity  to  Washington/ '' 

"The  Glory  of  Columbia"  is  one  of  Dunlap's 
poorest  plays.  The  better  parts  were  taken  from 
"Andre"  and  arranged  haphazard.  The  new  ma 
terial  was  constructed  hastily  and  with  the  sole 
idea  of  capturing  an  ebullient  Fourth  of  July 
audience.  The  Irish  humor  is  painful  and  has  no 

33  It  appears  that  when  this  play  was  given  at  the  South 
Street  Theatre  in  Philadelphia  on  July  4,  1807,  a  drop- 
scene,  painted  by  Andre  during  his  Revolutionary  con 
nection  with  the  Philadelphia  theatre,  was  used  as  back 
ground  for  this  episode.  See  "Andre,"  Publications  of 
the  Dunlap  Society,  introduction,  pp.  xiv,  xv. 


CJje  Original  $lap£  1 73 

connection  with  anything  else  in  the  piece.  The 
whole  composition  is  a  disjointed,  operatic  hodge 
podge,  sugar-coated  with  copious  quantities  of 
patriotism.  That  the  American  public  of  the  time 
was  uncritical  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  "The 
Glory  of  Columbia"  was  repeated  over  and  over 
again,  while  the  greatly  superior  "Andre"  disap 
peared  from  the  stage  after  three  performances. 
When  the  subject  was  America,  the  playgoers  de 
manded  not  art,  but  the  screaming  of  the  eagle. 
In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  the 
success  of  Burk's  atrocious  "Bunker  Hill ;  or,  The 
Death  of  Gen.  Warren"  (1797). 

"Bonaparte  in  England"  (1803)  was  a  timely 
farce  based  on  the  following  newspaper  account 
of  a  contemporary  event: 

"The  man  apprehended  at  Portsmouth,  under 
suspicion  of  being  JEROME  BONAPARTE,  is  dis 
charged.  He  had  much  the  looks  of  an  Italian 
Jew  (  ! !)  which  is  said  to  be  the  case  with  Jerome. 
While  under  confinement  he  was  treated  with  the 
greatest  politeness,  which  he  took  full  advantage 
of,  ordered  every  thing  to  the  best,  and  kicked  one 
of  the  persons  down  stairs,  who  was  appointed  to 
attend  him,  for  some  slight  disrespect.  On  being 
discharged,  he  desired  the  officers  to  tell  their  em 
ployers  that  as  they  had  insisted  upon  his  being 
the  first  consul's  brother,  he  had  lived  up  to  the 
character!" >34 

34  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  December  20,  1803,  re 
printed  this  notice  from  a  London  paper. 


1 74  i^illiam  2Dunla# 

Dunlap  made  his  hero  a  German  Jew  broker, 
named  Shadrach,  who,  being  shipwrecked  on  the 
coast  of  England,  was  seized  as  the  brother  of 
Napoleon.  The  broker  tried  to  do  justice  to  the 
honor,  and  by  his  lordly  air  gained  the  homage 
of  a  certain  Irish  officer,  who  confused  him  with 
Napoleon  himself.35  The  critics  pronounced  it  a 
laughable  farce.  Undoubtedly  there  are  possibili 
ties  for  comedy  in  the  idea,  and  it  is  to  be  re 
gretted  that  the  play  was  not  published. 

Concerning  "The    Proverb;    or,    Conceit    Can 

Cure,  Conceit  Can  Kill"   (1804),  we  know  only 

the  little  that  Dunlap  transcribed  from  a  news 
paper  notice: 

"The  plot  contains  considerable  novelty  of  in 
cident.  It  exhibits  a  picture  of  mountebank 
quackery,  common  in  Europe,  though  little  known 
in  this  country.  The  quack,  with  his  attendant 
apparatus  of  stage  and  Jack  Pudding,  is  intro 
duced.  The  plot  turns  on  the  manoeuvres  of  a 
couple  of  gentlemen  who  assume  the  above  dis 
guises;  the  object  of  one  being  to  regain  his  wife; 
the  other  to  obtain  the  hand  of  a  mistress."36 

Dunlap's  love  of  country  expressed  itself  both 
at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  War  of  1812. 
The  final  victory  was  dramatized  in  "The  Battle 
of  New  Orleans."  The  commencement  of  hostili 
ties  called  forth  the  musical  interlude  of  "Yankee 

35  See  "American  Theatre,"  p.  322. 

36  Ibid.,  p.  323. 


€ije  Original  plap£  1 7  5 

Chronology ;  or,  Huzza  for  the  Constitution !"  The 
preface,  dated  November  28,  1812,  reads: 

"The  song  of  Yankee  Chronology  was  written 
for  the  fourth  of  July  last,  excepting  the  last  verse. 
Upon  the  arrival  of  the  news  of  the  victory  ob 
tained  by  captain  Isaac  Hull  of  the  Constitution, 
over  the  english  frigate  the  Guerriere,  rnr.  Cooper 
called  upon  the  writer  and  requested  an  additional 
verse,  and  an  introductory  interlude.  My  wishes 
were  too  much  in  unison  with  his  to  allow  of  hesi 
tation.  On  the  anniversary  of  the  evacuation  of 
this  place,  another  verse  was  requested  and  given ; 
and  the  writer  would  be  happy  to  evince  his  grati 
tude  to  every  defender  of  his  country's  rights,  by 
adding  for  each  a  tribute  of  applause,  till  his  song 
outdid  chevy-chase  in  the  number  of  verses." 

The  prose  introduction  took  the  form  of  a  street 
scene  in  New  York.  Ben  Bundle,  who  fought  on 
the  Constitution,  returns  home  and  vigorously  de 
scribes  the  battle  to  his  father  and  one  O'Blunder. 
He  then  favors  them  with  a  song,  "Yankee  Chro 
nology."  This  song,  as  originally  written,  con 
tained  nine  stanzas  of  ten  lines  each,  recounting 
Revolutionary  events  from  Lexington  to  York- 
town,  and  urging  the  United  States  to  conquer  the 
same  "haughty  nation"  again.  After  the  victory 
of  the  Constitution  on  August  19,  a  tenth  stanza 
was  added,  and  a  final  one  was  annexed  on  No 
vember  25,  commemorating  the  evacuation  of  New 
York.  As  might  be  expected,  this  interlude  con- 


1 76  iMliam  SDunlap 

tains  a  great  deal  of  patriotism  and  very  little  art. 
Its  popularity  is  a  further  commentary  on  the 
public  taste. 

Dunlap's  last  play,  "A  Trip  to  Niagara;  or, 
Travellers  in  America"  (1828),  was,  as  he  stated 
in  the  preface,  no  more  than  a  farce  intended  as 
a  running  accompaniment  to  the  scenery.  The 
author  confessed  to  using  any  material  that  might 
amuse  the  audience. 

Act  I.  Amelia  Wentworth  and  her  brother 
from  England  are  stopping  in  New  York  during 
a  tour  of  the  United  States.  She  is  enthusiastic, 
he  is  disgusted,  with  everything  American.  Their 
cousin,  John  Bull,  in  love  with  Amelia,  suddenly 
appears.  To  her  he  proposes  the  cure  of  Went 
worth,  suggesting  herself  as  the  reward.  The 
three  plan  a  trip  up  the  Hudson  and  across  to 
Niagara.  As  the  first  step  in  the  curative  pro 
cess,  Bull  assumes  the  disguise  and  accent  of  a 
Frenchman.  The  second  scene  represents  a  boat- 
landing.  The  porters  of  the  various  boats  are 
vociferously  striving  to  decoy  passengers  into 
their  respective  vessels.  Bull  now  appears  as  Jon 
athan  and  annoys  Wentworth. 

Act  II  presents  the  Diorama,  showing  eighteen 
views  along  the  Hudson.  The  passengers  land  at 
Catskill.  Wentworth  protests  that  he  hardly  saw 
the  scenery,  having  been  exasperated  all  the  way 
by  a  Yankee  and  a  Frenchman.  An  Irishman, 
Dennis  Doherty,  furnishes  some  diversion  in  this 
act. 


Cljc  Original  $lap£  1 7  7 

Act  III  opens  with  a  mountain  sunrise.  Went- 
worth's  enjoyment  of  nature  is  again  rudely  jarred 
by  the  ubiquitous  Frenchman.  Enter  Leather- 
stocking,  who  recounts  some  adventures  from 
"The  Pioneers."  The  party  goes  to  Albany  and 
thence  to  Buffalo.  Jonathan  suddenly  changes  his 
tactics,  and  by  vilifying  the  Yankees  and  every 
thing  connected  therewith,  so  arouses  Went- 
worth's  contradictory  spirit  that  he  begins  defend 
ing  the  country.  Thereupon  Bull  reveals  himself, 
and  gains  the  necessary  consent  to  his  match  with 
Amelia.  The  final  scene  is  at  Niagara  Falls,  where 
Wentworth  admits  that  America  is  a  great  and 
glorious  land. 

So  "A  Trip  to  Niagara"  is  merely  a  series  of 
disconnected  and  puerile  scenes  and  irrelevant 
characters.  No  doubt  a  certain  amount  of  low 
comedy  could  be  extracted  from  it,  for  the  humor 
is  frequent  and  boisterous ;  but  unless  the  scenery 
was  strikingly  excellent  the  audience  with  reason 
might  have  demanded  its  money  back.  Appar 
ently,  however,  the  uncritical  playgoers  were  satis 
fied,  inasmuch  as  this  farce  was  given  at  least 
twenty-four  performances,  a  run  equaled  only  by 
"The  Glory  of  Columbia." 

Not  the  least  interesting  feature  of  "A  Trip  to 
Niagara"  is  the  dialect  characters.  Dunlap  here 
made  use  of  the  four  most  common  types  to  be 
found  in  early  American  plays:  the  negro,  the 
Frenchman,  the  Yankee,  and  the  Irishman.  Per 
haps  because  of  his  humble  social  position,  the 
negro  was  not  exploited  at  this  time  as  often  as 


178  iEiiliam  SDunlap 

one  might  expect.  Job  Jerryson  of  the  present 
play  is  the  only  extant  example  of  his  use  by  Dun- 
lap.  This  dusky  gentleman,  it  should  be  noted, 
has  somehow  lost  the  dialect  which  distinguished 
his  forerunners,  and  under  the  influence  of  north 
ern  liberty  he  speaks  like  a  lord  of  the  land. 

The  Frenchman  with  broken  English  was 
pressed  into  service  quite  as  often  as  the  negro, 
and  generally  he  was  treated  with  scant  respect. 
Either  he  was  made  the  butt  of  a  joke  or  he  was 
represented  as  a  worthless  character.  Possibly 
this  was  a  reflection  of  the  strained  relations  which 
existed  between  the  United  States  and  France 
from  about  1793  until  the  War  of  1812.  In  "A 
Trip  to  Niagara"  the  Gallic  element  is  merely  a 
disguise  and  reveals  no  animosity,  but  in  trans 
lating  "The  Wild  Goose  Chace"  (1800),  Dunlap 
arbitrarily  turned  the  mistreated  hair-dresser  into 
a  Frenchman.37 

That  Tyler's  Jonathan  was  a  real  contribution 
to  early  American  drama  is  attested  by  the  number 
of  imitations.  I  have  met  a  dozen  Yankees,  in 
cluding  the  one  in  Dunlap's  first  play,  by  1828,  and 
no  doubt  there  were  others.  Though  the  Jonathan 
of  "A  Trip  to  Niagara"  is  a  disguise  figure,  yet 
he  possesses  many  qualities  of  the  original, — 
noticeably  shrewdness  and  humor.  He  even  per 
petrates  the  famous  Yankee  joke  of  nutmegs  made 
from  pine  boards. 

The  favorite  dialect  personage  was  the  Irish 
man.  I  have  counted  twenty-two  plays  with  Irish 

37  See  post,  p.  218. 


€l)c  Original  $lap£  1 79 

characters  by  1828.  Probably  his  popularity  in 
the  United  States  was  a  result  of  his  popularity  on 
the  English  stage.  Dunlap,  who  came  of  Irish 
stock,  was  especially  fond  of  the  race.  Not  less 
than  seven  of  his  pieces  contain  Hibernians : 
"Darby's  Return,"  "The  Glory  of  Columbia," 
"Bonaparte  in  England,"  "Lewis  of  Monte  Blanco ; 
or,  The  Transplanted  Irishman,"  "The  Wife  of 
Two  Husbands,"  "Yankee  Chronology,"  and  "A 
Trip  to  Niagara."  These  Irishmen  of  his  are  a 
particularly  irresponsible  tribe,  and  their  speech  is 
as  replete  with  bulls  and  brogue  as  a  true  son  of 
Erin's  should  be. 

In  the  appendix  to  his  "History  of  the  American 
Theatre"  Dunlap  gave  himself  credit  for  two  plays 
to  which  he  was  not  entitled:  "Blue  Beard"  and 
"The  Africans."  "Blue  Beard,"  the  work  of 
George  Colman  the  Younger,  after  a  few  seasons 
at  Drury  Lane  appeared  on  the  New  York  stage 
in  1802,  and  was  often  repeated  for  several 
years.38  It  was  printed  at  New  York  in  1803,  re 
printed  in  1806,  and  again  in  1811.  The  title-page 
bears  this  clause:  "As  altered  for  the  New- York 
Theatre:  With  additional  songs,  By  Wm.  Dun- 
lap,  Esq."  A  comparison  of  the  New  York  edition 
with  the  London  edition  of  1798  shows  that  Dun- 
lap  divided  the  drama  into  three  instead  of  the 
original  two  acts,  and  rearranged  the  order  of 
episodes  somewhat;  but  his  actual  contribution 
amounted  to  one  song  in  Act  I,  Scene  I. 

38  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  March  8,  1802,  and  fol 
lowing  issues. 


i8o 

The  second  misappropriated  play  was  also  the 
work  of  Colman.  "The  Africans ;  or,  War,  Love, 
and  Duty"  was  first  presented  at  the  Haymarket  in 
1808.  Its  New  York  premiere  took  place  on  Jan 
uary  2,  i8io.39  It  was  printed  anonymously  at 
Philadelphia  in  1811.  It  is  impossible  to  say 
whether  Dunlap  had  anything  to  do  with  this  ver 
sion  or  not,  but  it  is  probable  that  during  his 
second  connection  with  the  theatre  he  treated  "The 
Africans"  much  as  he  had  before  treated  "Blue 
Beard."  That  he  wrote  an  original  play  of  this 
name  is  very  unlikely,  because  the  "American 
Theatre"  makes  no  mention  of  such  a  title,  aside 
from  a  direct  reference  to  Colman's  drama  in  this 
sentence :  "January  2d,  1810,  'The  Africans'  had  a 
run."40 

"Rinaldo  Rinaldini"  is  a  name  which  Dunlap 
included  in  his  bibliography,  and  consequently  an 
anonymous  "Rinaldo  Rinaldini,"  "by  an  American 
and  a  citizen  of  New- York,"  printed  in  1810,  has 
been  generally  ascribed  to  him.  Frederick  H. 
Wilkens,  however,  has  expressed  a  doubt  as  to  the 
accuracy  of  this  attribution.41  He  unquestionably 
has  grounds  for  his  suspicion.  Poor  as  some  of 
Dunlap's  work  was,  he  never  descended  to  the 
formless,  puerile  impotence  of  this  so-called 
tragedy.  He  was  always  capable  of  writing  pass 
able  blank  verse,  whereas  this  affair  is  composed 

39  "Evening  Post"  of  that  date.    A  criticism  in  the  issue 
of  January  5  definitely  called  it  Colman's  play. 

40  P-  357- 

41  "Americana  Germanica,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  135. 


€i)e  (Original  $Iap£  1 8 1 

in  a  sort  of  vers  libre  of  from  three  to  six  feet. 
Moreover,  the  preface  indicates  that  it  came  from 
the  pen  of  a  novice: 

"I  am  sensible  of  the  disadvantage  which  I  con 
sequently  labour  under,  from  a  confined  education  ; 
nor  do  I  expect  my  style  will  be  thought  equal,  in 
elegance  or  energy,  to  the  productions  of  those 
who,  fortunately,  from  their  situation  in  life,  have 
been  instructed  in  the  Classics.  .  .  . 

"The  reason  [for  the  failure  of  the  play  to  ap 
pear  on  the  stage]  is  very  obvious;  the  Author 
not  having  an  opportunity  from  the  time  of  its 
being  written,  to  the  publication.  The  Play  was 
written  for  the  Stage,  but  never  offered." 

Now  in  1810  Dunlap  was  one  of  the  managers  of 
the  theatre ;  he  therefore  would  have  no  reason  to 
complain  of  lack  of  opportunity  for  presenting  his 
play.  It  is  said  to  have  appeared  on  the  boards  of 
the  Park  Theatre  sometime  in  i8io.42  If  this  was 
the  case  the  situation  would  seem  to  be  that  Dunlap 
revised  the  printed  copy  for  the  stage  and  pre 
sented  it.  There  are  no  grounds  for  believing  that 
he  wrote  another  "Rinaldo  Rinaldini." 


For  two  titles  in  Dunlap's  bibliography  I  have 
no  data.  "Forty  and  Twenty"  and  "Robespierre" 
were  apparently  neither  acted  nor  printed,  and  I 

42  Wegelin,  "Early  American  Plays,"  edition  of  1905, 
P-  35- 


1 8  2  JMliam  SDunlap 

am  unable   to   say   when   they  were   written,   or 
whether  they  were  originals  or  translations.43 


Ill 

I  HAVE  termed  the  plays  considered  in  this  chap 
ter  "original/'  but  the  word  is  to  be  understood 
only  in  a  relative  sense,  as  distinguishing  them 
from  the  translations.  The  foregoing  discussion 
has  brought  out  the  fact  that  in  practically  every 
instance  Dunlap  was  indebted  to  some  outside 
source  for  his  central  idea.  Almost  invariably  he 
borrowed  his  essential  elements  from  a  novel,  a 
historical  event,  or  another  play,  as  he  always 
frankly  admitted.  To  be  sure,  borrowing  plots  is 
a  practice  sanctioned  by  the  most  unimpeachable 
precedent,  but  the  result  is  notable  only  when  the 
borrowing  is  revitalized  by  the  author's  person 
ality.  Such  an  achievement  requires  creative 
power,  and  creative  power  was  what  Dunlap 
lacked.  His  mind  could  not  evolve  an  original 
conception.  Only  when  the  idea  came  to  him 
ready-made,  could  he  produce  a  drama,  and  even 
then  his  accomplishment  was  frequently  but  little 
more  than  a  change  of  form.  His  equipment  con 
sisted  chiefly  of  a  knowledge  of  stagecraft  and  a 

43  Mr.  Wegelin,  "Early  American  Plays,"  Publications 
of  the  Dunlap  Society,  second  series,  No.  10,  1900,  p.  38, 
has  placed  "It  Is  a  Lie!"  among  Dunlap's  unpublished 
dramas,  which,  he  says,  was  acted  at  the  New  Bowery 
Theatre  on  August  20,  1828.  A  farce  called  "Is  It  a  Lie  ?" 
was  given  there  at  that  time,  but  I  find  no  reason  for 
associating  it  with  Dunlap. 


€1)0  Original  $Iap£  1 83 

certain  facility  of  composition,  equipment  which 
fitted  him  to  be  a  dramatic  remodeler  rather  than  a 
creator. 

Of  Dunlap's  quasi-original  plays,  eleven  were 
printed  as  they  came  from  his  pen,  and  one  as 
revised  by  another  hand.  These  twelve  pieces  may 
be  taken  as  favorably  representative  of  his  work, 
since  he  listed  all  but  "Yankee  Chronology"  and 
"A  Trip  to  Niagara'5  in  the  prospectus  of  his  ten- 
volume  edition.  From  first  to  last  he  showed  a 
peculiar  lack,  of  improvement.  Perhaps  his  best 
dramas  are  his  second  and  fourth— "The  Father" 
and  "Leicester."  Certainly  his  last  is  one  of  his 
poorest.  His  career  as  a  writer  for  the  stage  may 
be  divided  into  two  periods.  The  first,  from  1787 
to  the  end  of  1799,  was  a  period  of  fairly  con 
tinuous  work.  The  second,  from  1800  to  1828, 
was  a  period  of  occasional  composition  which  pro 
duced  only  about  the  same  number  of  dramas  as 
the  first  period  of  less  than  half  its  length.  More 
over,  in  the  first  period  he  did  almost  all  his  better 
work,  at  least  so  far  as  we  know  it.  The  cause  of 
this  situation  is  not  far  to  seek.  Before  his  the 
atrical  troubles  thickened  around  him,  Dunlap  was 
a  man  of  comfortable  means  and  sufficient  leisure 
for  his  hobbies.  In  the  fall  of  1798  the  sole  di 
rectorship  of  the  theatre  devolved  on  him.  From 
then  on,  his  time  and  finances  were  taxed  to  the 
utmost.  The  harassed  man  was  now  compelled 
to  exercise  his  pen  in  manufacturing  such  things 
as  would  attract  the  largest  crowds.  Translation 
was  the  solution  he  hit  upon,  as  did  Richard 


1 84  JBilliam  SDunlap 

Brinsley  Sheridan  in  a  similar  predicament.  By 
adapting  a  popular  writer  of  France  or  Germany, 
he  could  quickly  and  inexpensively  obtain  a  play 
which  would  be  sure  to  draw  vastly  better  than  his 
most  careful  original  dramas.  The  preparation  of 
several  foreign  novelties  each  year  consumed 
nearly  all  the  little  leisure  allowed  him  by  his  posi 
tion,  and  when  the  opportunity  to  do  independent 
work  did  offer  itself,  he  hastily  knocked  together 
something  like  "The  Glory  of  Columbia,"  that 
would  be  likely  to  fill  the  house.  When  the 
managerial  enterprise  came  to  a  disastrous  close, 
the  grim  struggle  with  poverty  began,  to  end  only 
with  death.  Play-writing  then  could  hardly  be 
thought  of,  because  of  all  professions  it  was  the 
most  precarious  during  this  time  of  contempt  for 
native  literature.  If  Dunlap's  products  of  the 
second  period  were  inferior  to  those  of  the  first,  it 
was  not  from  any  loss  of  the  ability  displayed  in 
his  earlier  years.  "Andre"  and  "The  Italian  Father" 
show  as  much  skill  as  any  of  his  plays,  because 
somehow  the  author  still  found  time  to  work 
deliberately.  Under  such  circumstances  he  was 
capable  of  constructing  a  theatrically  effective 
drama,  for  he  understood  the  mechanics  of  his 
craft.  Professor  Matthews  truly  said:  "That 
Dunlap  was  not  a  poet,  in  any  strict  acceptation  of 
the  word,  needs  no  discussion ;  he  was  a  competent 
playwright,  and  he  knew  how  to  make  a  drama 
in  accordance  with  the  tenets  of  his  time."44 

44  "Andre,"  Publications  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  intro 
duction,  p.  xiii. 


Cfje  <©riginai  $top£  1 8  5 

Therefore  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  he 
would  have  achieved  more  worthy  results  in  his 
second  period  had  he  been  able  to  devote  all  his 
faculties  to  the  task. 

That  he  was  accorded  a  high  place  by  his  con 
temporaries,  may  be  seen  from  the  following  quo 
tations.  The  "London  Magazine"  in  1826  pub 
lished  a  letter  from  Philadelphia  on  "American 
Dramatists,"  which  contained  this  sentence :  "The 
name  of  William  Dunlap  stands  at  the  head  of  the 
list  of  American  dramatists:  his  muse  has  been 
prolific,  having  produced  forty-five  pieces  of  this 
nature,  many  of  which  indicate  respectable  dra 
matic  talent."45  According  to  the  "American 
Quarterly  Review"  of  1827,  "The  earliest  dramatic 
writer  of  New- York,  and  we  think  the  best,  was 
William  Dunlap."46  "The  New  York  Mirror"  in 
1833  said : 

"As  a  dramatist,  Mr.  Dunlap  has  never  received 
his  due  praise.  If  we  consider  the  number  of  his 
works,  he  will  be  found,  we  believe,  to  have  been 
by  far  the  most  prolific  writer  for  the  American 
stage.  If  he  be  judged  by  the  criterion  of  success, 
it  will  be  discovered  that  as  large  a  proportion  of 
his  pieces  keep  possession  of  the  boards,  as  of  the 
average  of  dramatic  writers,  who  are  numbered 
among  the  permanent  classics  of  the  theatre.  His 
numerous  pieces  were  almost  invariably  performed 
with  applause;  and,  free  as  they  are  from  false 

*5  New  series,  Vol.  VI,  pp.  466  ff. 
«  Vol.  I,  p.  350. 


1 86  William  SDunlap 

taste  and  extravagance,  show  the  power  of  fixing 
attention  and  exciting  interest  by  legitimate  means 
— of  touching  the  true  springs  of  mirth  and  pity 
and  terror."  The  diction  of  his  blank  verse  "is 
natural  and  spirited,  and  sometimes  rises  into 
beauty."  In  all  his  work  "he  has  been  careful  to 
keep  in  view  the  true  and  nobler  uses  of  the  drama, 
and  to  direct  it  to  results  favorable  to  virtue."47 

A  comparison  of  the  plays  of  Dunlap's  first 
period  with  those  of  other  American  writers  prior 
to  1800  indicates  very  clearly  that  he  was  the  only 
playwright  deserving  the  name  whom  this  country 
had  as  yet  produced.  Godfrey  had  written  a  pass 
able  play,  but  only  one.  Brackenridge's  rhetorical 
compositions  were  not  intended  to  be  acted.  Mrs. 
Warren's  pieces,  consisting  of  several  political 
pamphlets  in  dramatic  form  and  two  inferior 
tragedies,  never  appeared  in  the  theatre.  Tyler 
could  boast  of  but  three  plays.  Mrs.  Rowson  was 
a  novelist  who  occasionally  turned  to  drama.  Burk 
was  an  editor  and  historian  who  brought  out  four 
ranting  plays.  Our  author  gave  to  the  theatre 
during  this  period  an  average  of  rather  more  than 
one  drama  a  year,  the  worst  equal  to  the  average 
of  his  predecessors,  and  the  best  considerably 
better  than  anything  yet  written.  Dunlap,  then, 
was  the  first  American  to  lay  claim  to  the  title  of 
professional  dramatist  by  writing  a  succession  of 
moderately  good  plays  that  were  actually  staged. 
His  mild  superiority  was  the  result  of  several 
qualities.  He  had  a  sense  of  humor.  He  could 

^  Vol.  X,  p.  266. 


€tje  Original  $lap£  1 8  7 

write  smoother  prose  and  more  literary  blank  verse 
than  his  rivals.  And,  better  still,  he  knew  how  to 
build  a  play  to  secure  continuous  interest  and 
suspense. 

Between  1800  and  1828,  when  Dunlap  finally 
ceased  writing  for  the  theatre,  a  few  dramatists 
came  to  the  front,  who,  though  producing  a  smaller 
quantity  than  he  did,  were  more  highly  endowed. 
Among  these  may  be  mentioned  James  Nelson 
Barker,  John  Howard  Payne,  and  Samuel  Wood- 
worth.  But  if  they  surpassed  their  older  con 
temporary,  it  was  in  part  owing  to  the  fact  that  he 
had  gone  before  and  blazed  the  trail.  For  though 
Dunlap  was  an  imitator  of  foreign  tendencies,  yet 
in  this  very  imitation  he  proved  to  be  an  innovator 
and  pioneer  in  the  history  of  American  drama.  It 
would  be  futile  to  attempt  to  point  out  any  specific 
influence  of  his  on  his  immediate  followers,  be 
cause  it  is  impossible  to  separate  his  influence  from 
that  of  the  general  type  he  was  copying;  yet  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  his  work  helped  attract 
other  writers  to  the  forms  with  which  he  dealt. 

His  first  acted  play  was  a  sentimental  comedy,  a 
species  which  had  long  been  very  prominent  in 
England.  But  "The  Father"  was  only  the  second 
of  the  kind  to  be  composed  in  this  country,  Tyler's 
"Contrast"  having  preceded  it  by  a  year  or  two. 
Subsequently  Dunlap  staged  three  other  pieces  of 
sentimentalism,  "Sterne's  Maria,"  "The  Natural 
Daughter,"48  and  "The  Italian  Father."  It  is  safe 

48  This  play  was  not  printed,  but  the  title,  deriving 
from  Cumberland's  "Natural  Son,"  indicates  sentimental 
content. 


1 88  William  SDunlap 

to  assume  that  these  added  their  weight  to  the  in 
fluence  of  the  English  representatives  to  call  into 
being  the  large  body  of  sentimental  drama,  which 
soon  began  appearing  here.49 

An  important  division  of  Dunlap's  writing  was 
the  patriotic  play.  In  this  field  he  was  not  a 
pioneer,  but  he  was  the  most  generous  contributor. 
Throughout  his  career  this  staunch  patriot  em 
ployed  his  pen  in  praise  of  his  native  land.  At  the 
outset  he  wrote  "Darby's  Return,"  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  glorify  America.  Then  came 
"Andre,"  "The  Soldier  of  '76,"  "The  Temple  of 
Independence,"  "The  Glory  of  Columbia,"  "Yan 
kee  Chronology,"  "The  Battle  of  New  Orleans," 
and  "A  Trip  to  Niagara."  Perhaps  he  helped 

49  I  have  found  the  following  sentimental  dramas,  which 
were  written  in  the  United  States  between  Dunlap's  first 
acted  play  and  his  last  (1789-1828).  This  and  the  lists 
below  are  not  exhaustive,  but  they  show  the  tendencies 
during  the  years  of  Dunlap's  dramatic  authorship.  "The 
Yorker's  Stratagem"  (1792),  J.  Robinson;  "Slaves  in 
Algiers"  (1794),  Susannah  Rowson;  "The  Triumphs  of 
Love"  (1795),  J.  Murdock;  "The  Man  of  the  Times" 
(1797),  Beete;  "Reparation"  (1800),  T.  P.  Lathy;  "The 
Hypocrite  Unmasked"  (1801),  W.  Winstanley;  "He 
Stoops  to  Conquer"  (1804),  John  Minshull ;  "Julia" 
(1806),  J.  H.  Payne;  "Tears  and  Smiles"  (1807),  J.  N. 
Barker;  "Jonathan  Postfree"  (1807),  L.  Beach;  "The 
Trust"  (1808)  and  "The  Fox  Chase"  (1808),  Charles 
Breck;  "The  School  for  Prodigals"  (1809),  "Fashionable 
Follies"  (1809),  and  "The  Wounded  Hussar"  (1809), 
Joseph  Hutton;  "Love  and  Friendship"  (1809),  A.  B. 
Lindsley;  "The  Child  of  Feeling"  (1809),  George  Wat- 
terson;  "The  Clergyman's  Daughter"  (1810)  and  "The 
Poor  Lodger"  (1811),  W.  C.  White;  "The  Yankey  in 
England"  (1815),  David  Humphreys;  "Clari"  (1823), 
J.  H.  Payne. 


€l)c  Original  $Iap£  1 89 

popularize  this  type,  for  national  affairs  became 
one  of  the  commonest  themes  in  our  early  drama.50 
In  the  history  of  ballad-opera  Dunlap  occupies 
a  considerable  place.  Several  operas  had  been 
written  in  this  country  before  he  attempted  the 
form,  but  "Darby's  Return"  was  the  first  to  reach 
the  stage.  It  was  followed  by  "The  Archers," 
"Sterne's Maria,"  "The  Wild  Goose  Chace"  (altered 
into  an  opera  from  Kotzebue),  "The  Knight  of 
Guadalquiver,"  and  "The  Glory  of  Columbia."  No 
doubt  it  was  partly  as  a  result  of  these  that  plays 
interspersed  with  songs  grew  to  be  very  numerous 
at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  and  the  be 
ginning  of  the  nineteenth.51 

50  Partial  list  of  patriotic  dramas  during  Dunlap's  pe 
riod :    "Slaves    in   Algiers"    (1794),    Susannah    Rowson ; 
"The  Death  of  Major  Andre"  (c.  1795),  Mrs.  Marriott; 
"Bunker  Hill"  (1797)  and  "The  Death  of  Montgomery" 
(1797),    John    Burk;    "West    Point    Preserved"    (1797), 
Brown;  "A  New  World  Planted"   (1802),  Joseph  Cros- 
well;  "The  Battle  of  Eutaw  Springs  and  Evacuation  of 
Charlestown"    (1807),  William  loor;  "The  Indian  Prin 
cess"  (1808),  J.  N.  Barker;  "The  Battle  of  New  Orleans" 
(1816),  C.  E.  Grice;  "Triumph  of  Liberty"  (1819),  J.  B. 
White;  "She  Would  be  a  Soldier"  (1819)  and  "Marion" 
(1821),  M.  M.  Noah;  "The  Spy"   (1822),  C.  P.  Clinch; 
"A  Tale  of  Lexington"    (1823),  S.  B.  H.  Judah ;  "The 
Widow's    Son"     (1825),    Samuel    Woodworth;    "Indian 
Prophecy"  (1828),  G.  W.  P.  Custis. 

51  Partial  list  of  musical  plays  during  Dunlap's  period : 
''The  Reconciliation"  (1790),  Peter  Markoe;  "Tammany" 
(1794),  Ann  Hatton;  "Slaves  in  Algiers"  (1794),  Susan 
nah    Rowson;    "Edwin    and    Angelina"    (1796),    E.    H. 
Smith;    "Rural    Felicity"     (1801)     and    "The    Sprightly 
Widow"  (1803),  John  Minshull ;  "Independance"  (1805), 
Wril!iam   loor;    "Jonathan    Postfree"    (1807),   L.    Beach; 
"Tears  and  Smiles"    (1807)    and  "The  Indian   Princess" 
(1808),  J.  N.  Barker;  "The  Wounded  Hussar"   (1809), 


1 90  JBflttam  SDunlap 

In  employing  the  robber  motif  Dunlap  had  only 
one  predecessor,  E.  H.  Smith,  author  of  "Edwin 
and  Angelina."  "The  Knight's  Adventure,"  re 
vised  by  Hodgkinson,  probably  exerted  some  in 
fluence  in  calling  forth  the  succeeding  group  of 
robber  dramas.52 

One  of  Dunlap's  distinct  novelties  was  the 
Gothic  drama,  which  appeared  full-grown  in 
"Fontainville  Abbey,"  "The  Knight's  Adventure," 
and  "Ribbemont."  The  type  was  soon  seized  upon 
by  other  Americans  and  frequently  used.53 

Closely  allied  to  the  Gothic  drama  was  his  most 
important  innovation,  the  romantic  tragedy  and 
tragi-comedy.  I  have  already  shown  that  the  pre- 

Joseph  Hutton;  "The  Mountain  Torrent"  (1820)  and 
'The  Rose  of  Arragon"  (1822),  S.  B.  H.  Judah;  "Pad 
dy's  Trip  to  America"  (1822),  Charles  Talbot;  "The 
Deed  of  Gift"  (1822),  Samuel  Woodworth;  "Clari" 
(1823),  J.  H.  Payne;  "The  Saw  Mill"  (1824),  Micah 
Hawkins;  "The  Forest  Rose"  (1825)  and  "The  Widow's 
Son"  (1825),  Samuel  Woodworth. 

52  Partial  list  of  robber  plays:  "Rudolph"   (1799?),  J. 
D.  Turnbull;  "The  Mysteries  of  the  Castle"  (1807),  J.  B. 
White;    "Rinaldo   Rinaldini"    (1810),   anonymous;    "The 
Rescue"  (1813),  Rinaldo  D'Elville;  "Otho"  (1819),  John 
Neal;  "The  Forest  of  Rosenwald"  (1821),  J.  Stokes. 

53  Partial   list   of   Gothic   plays :    "Female   Patriotism" 
(1798),  John  Burk;   "Edwy  and   Elgiva"    (1801),   C.  J. 
Ingersoll;  "Bethlem  Gabor"  (1807),  J.  Burk;  "The  Mys 
teries  of  the  Castle"   (1807),  J-  B.  White;  "The  Wood 
Daemon"     (1808),    J.    D.    Turnbull;    "The    Orphan    of 
Prague"    (1808),    Joseph    Hutton;    "Rinaldo    Rinaldini" 
(1810),  anonymous;   "Marmion"    (1812),  J.  N.   Barker; 
"Otho"    (1819),   John    Neal;    "The    Mountain    Torrent" 
(1820),   S.   B.   H.  Judah;   "The   Forest   of   Rosenwald" 
(1821),  J.  Stokes;  "The  Forgers"   (1825),  J.  B.  White; 
"Hadad"  (1825),  J.  A.  Hillhouse. 


Cljc  <©rigmai  ptepg  1 9 1 

vailing  kind  of  serious  play  in  America  before  1790 
was  the  eighteenth  century  form  of  tragedy. 
''Leicester"  was  the  first  protest  against  this 
tendency,  and  it  was  backed  up  by  four  roman 
tic  tragi-comedies :  "Fontainville  Abbey,"  "The 
Knight's  Adventure,"  "The  Archers/'  and  "Rib- 
bemont."  These  must  have  had  some  influence, 
inasmuch  as  the  serious  plays  after  1795  as  a  ru^e 
discarded  the  conventional  formula.54 

From  this  analysis  of  his  original  compositions, 
Dunlap's  place  in  the  history  of  American  drama 
is  apparent.  He  invented  no  new  types  and  con 
ceived  no  new  ideas,  but  he  was  a  pioneer  in  em 
ploying  several  types  and  ideas  as  yet  almost,  or 
wholly,  untried  in  this  country.  His  important 
work  was  done  in  the  last  decade  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  a  period  of  great  change  in  our  drama. 
The  plays  written  in  the  United  States  between 
1795  and  1830  represent  a  very  different  classifi 
cation  from  those  of  the  preceding  thirty-five 

54  In  a  list  of  romantic  dramas  during  the  period  under 
consideration,  all  the  above  robber  and  Gothic  plays 
should  be  included,  as  well  as  the  following  titles :  "Slaves 
in  Algiers"  (1794),  Susannah  Rowson;  "The  Indian 
Princess"  (1808),  J.  N.  Barker;  "The  Fortress  of  Sor 
rento"  (1808)  and  "The  Wandering  Boys"  (1812),  M.  M. 
Noah;  "Demetria"  (1813),  J.  A.  Hillhouse;  "She  Would 
be  a  Soldier"  (1819),  M.  M.  Noah;  "Percy's  Masque" 
(1820),  J.  A.  Hillhouse;  "The  Rose  of  Arragon"  (1822), 
S.  B.  H.  Judah;  "The  Grecian  Captive"  (1822),  M.  M. 
Noah;  "The  Spy"  (1822),  C.  P.  Clinch;  "AH  Pacha" 
(1823)  and  "The  Galley  Slaves"  (1823),  J.  H.  Payne; 
"Superstition"  (1823),  J.  N.  Barker;  "Logan"  (1823), 
Joseph  Doddridge;  "La  Fayette"  (1824)  and  "The  Wid 
ow's  Son"  (1825),  Samuel  Woodworth. 


192  D&iHiam  SDunlap 

years,  and  this  classification  is  that  of  Dunlap's 
productions.  I  do  not  mean  to  intimate  that 
American  dramatists  consciously  followed  in  his 
steps,  but  unquestionably  he  was  the  most  con 
spicuous  leader  at  the  end  of  the  century,  for  in 
every  case  he  was  among  the  first  to  try  the 
novelty  which  later  became  the  recognized  con 
vention. 

But,  after  all,  the  most  memorable  thing  about 
our  dramatist  is  not  that  he  wrote  good  plays  or 
bad  plays,  important  plays  or  negligible  plays,  but 
that  he  wrote  plays  at  all.  He  had  a  pleasant 
and  remunerative  business;  and  certainly  the  ex 
perience  of  his  forerunners  was  not  such  as  to 
tempt  a  young  man  from  the  selling  of  china  to 
the  writing  of  dramas.  His  motives  were  love  of 
the  art  and  a  desire  to  be  known  as  a  playwright. 
He  obeyed  the  urge  of  the  author's  instinct  at  a 
time  when  authorship  was  not  encouraged.  He 
rejoiced  in  the  opportunity  to  give  his  countrymen 
the  benefit  of  his  talent.  And  in  recounting 
William  Dunlap's  claims  to  an  honorable  re 
membrance,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  com 
mercialism  had  no  part  in  the  making  of  the 
Father  of  American  Drama. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  DRAMATIC  TRANSLATIONS 

THE  international  copyright  law  was  a  product 
of  the  mid-nineteenth  century.  The  first  at 
tempt  to  protect  an  author  outside  the  limits  of  his 
country  was  made  in  1837  by  Prussia,  but  a  com 
plete  system  of  international  protection  was  not 
evolved  until  much  later.1  In  the  time  of  Dunlap's 
struggle  for  theatrical  existence,  a  piece  of  foreign 
literature  was  the  legitimate  prey  of  any  man  who 
chose  to  appropriate  it.  Literary  piracy  directed 
against  another  nation  was  a  respectable  and  some 
times  a  lucrative  occupation. 

This  lax  state  of  affairs  proved  a  boon  to  the 
manager  of  the  New  York  theatre.  He  was  there 
by  enabled  to  provide  his  stage  not  only  with  the 
English  favorites  without  cost,  but  also  with 
numerous  French  and  German  novelties  simply  by 
the  expenditure  of  the  time  necessary  for  transla 
tion.  Dunlap  was  well  aware  that  a  play  bearing 
the  European  trade-mark  was  much  more  certain 
of  a  cordial  reception  than  a  home  product.  Hence 
during  the  greater  part  of  his  managership  he  em 
ployed  himself  extensively  in  translating  and  pre 
senting  foreign  successes.  Here  he  found  a  task 
for  which  he  was  peculiarly  fitted.  Though  en 
dowed  with  but  little  originality,  he  yet  knew  stage 

1  R.  R.  Bowker,  "Copyright,  Its  History  and  Its  Law," 
Boston,  1912,  p.  311. 

193 


1 94  i©ifliani  SDunlap 

technique  thoroughly,  and  with  a  ready  com 
mand  of  English  and  some  linguistic  ability,  he 
was  well  equipped  for  dramatic  remodeling. 
Translating  for  the  theatre  had  become  a  frequent 
practice  in  England,  and  it  was  already  slightly 
known  in  this  country,  but  Dunlap  was  the  earliest 
American  to  make  a  business  of  it. 


OUR  author's  activities  as  an  adapter  were  con 
fined  chiefly  to  German  drama,  but  he  also  drew 
upon  France  for  contributions,  and  indeed  his  first 
translation  was  made  from  the  French.  Theatre 
goers  of  the  United  States  had  formed  a  passing 
acquaintance  with  the  dramatic  literature  of 
France  through  occasional  British  renderings,  such 
as  Philips's  "Distressed  Mother,"  Hill's  "Zara," 
and  Dibdin's  "Deserter,"  as  well  as  a  few  Amer 
ican  adaptations,  especially  Henry's  "School  for 
Soldiers"  and  Humphreys's  "Widow  of  Malabar." 
Dunlap,  however,  gave  French  drama  a  much 
more  conspicuous  place  on  our  stage  than  it  had 
formerly  possessed. 

In  1797  the  New  York  manager  submitted  his 
first  effort  at  translation  to  the  judgment  of  his 
patrons.  When  "Tell  Truth  and  Shame  the 
Devil"  issued  from  the  press  it  was  accompanied 
with  this  note:  "Those  who  are  curious  to  know 
how  far  this  comedy  is  original,  or  how  far  bor 
rowed,  will  be  satisfied  by  consulting  a  French 


€l>e  2E>ramatic  Srang!ation£       1 9  5 

dramatic  proverb,  of  one  act,  called  JEROME 
POINTU/'  This  piece  by  A.  L.  B.  Robineau,  who 
wrote  under  the  pseudonym  of  "Beaunoir,"  was 
presented  at  Paris  in  1781.  Jerome  Pointu  is  a 
licentious,  avaricious,  hypocritical  lawyer,  who  dis 
charges  his  free-and-easy  clerk,  Leandre,  for 
moral  irregularities.  Leandre  returns  disguised 
and  leads  Jerome  to  disclose  his  passion  for  wine, 
women,  and  gaming.  Over  the  dice-box  the  clerk 
wins  all  Jerome's  possessions ;  then  revealing  him 
self,  he  offers  to  restore  everything  in  exchange 
for  the  hand  of  his  daughter.  Though  violently 
opposed  to  the  match,  the  miserly  lawyer  is  forced 
into  the  bargain. 

Dunlap  robbed  this  clever  little  farce  of  most  of 
its  effect  by  over-moralizing  it.  "Tell  Truth  and 
Shame  the  Devil"  opens  with  a  scene  not  in  the 
original,  in  which  Semblance  (Pointu  renamed)  is 
accused  by  his  honest  partner,  Whitely  (invented 
by  Dunlap),  of  all  manner  of  abomination;  thus 
the  interest  of  seeing  the  hypocrite's  character 
gradually  exposed  is  destroyed.  Dunlap's  incor 
rigible  honesty  again  led  him  astray  at  the  end. 
The  point  of  the  French  piece  is  entirely  lost  when 
Semblance  refuses  his  consent  to  the  engagement 
because  of  Tom's  deception  in  the  disguise.  The 
American  version  closes  with  an  original  epilogue 
satirizing  untruth  by  pretending  to  praise  it. 

Aside  from  the  changes  which  I  have  noted  and 
the  omission  of  the  superfluous  clerk,  Blaise,  the 
adapter  followed  the  French  outline  carefully.  But 
he  never  fell  into  the  error  of  rendering  literally; 


196 

the  play  was  written  in  colloquial  and  idiomatic 
English. 

In  1799,  in  the  midst  of  his  Kotzebuean  labors, 
Dunlap  again  turned  his  attention  to  France.  This 
time  he  employed  a  bourgeois  tragedy  of  some 
prominence,  "Le  Deserteur"  (c.  1770),  by  Louis 
Sebastien  Mercier.  It  is  one  of  the  many  lacry- 
mose  plays  which  France  produced  after  the  in 
vasion  of  sentimentalism  during  the  first  half  of 
the  eighteenth  century.2  "Le  Deserteur"  presents 
the  sad  history  of  a  young  man  who,  having  de 
serted  his  regiment  because  of  ill-treatment,  is  ap 
prehended  on  the  eve  of  his  marriage,  and  is  ex 
ecuted.  The  grief  of  the  hero's  newly  found 
father  adds  poignancy  to  the  tragedy.3 

Dunlap  prepared  this  play  for  his  theatre  as 
"The  School  for  Soldiers,"  drawing  heavily,  it 
would  seem,  on  "The  School  for  Soldiers ;  or,  The 
Deserter,"  a  version  made  in  1783  by  John  Henry 
of  the  old  American  Company.  The  later  transla 
tion  was  not  published,  but  a  comparison  of  the 
respective  dramatis  persona,  as  found  in  Ireland, 
shows  that  Dunlap  employed  Henry's  revised 
names,4  and  one  easily  infers  that  the  borrowing 
did  not  stop  there.  The  New  York  manager,  per 
haps  following  his  predecessor's  lead,  domesticated 

2  See   F.    Gaiffe,    "Le   Drame   en   France    au   XVIIIe 
Siecle,"  Paris,  1910. 

3  Mercier's  "Le  Deserteur"  is  not  to  be  confused  with 
Sedaine's  musical  drama  of  the  same  name,  translated  by 
Thomas  Dibdin. 

*  "Records  of  the  New  York  Stage,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  79,  188. 


£f)e  SDramatic  €ranglation£       1 9  7 

the  plot  by  laying  the  action  in  the  time  of  the 
American  Revolution.5 

A  few  months  later  Dunlap  presented  "The 
Robbery,"  his  adaptation  of  Boutet  de  Monvel's 
"Clementine  et  Desormes."  This  sentimental 
drama,  first  performed  at  the  Theatre  Frangais  in 
1780,  had  already  been  translated  into  Dutch, 
Italian,  and  Spanish.  The  American  version  was 
not  printed,  and  I  have  been  able  to  locate  its 
original  only  through  the  cast  of  characters 
printed  in  the  "Commercial  Advertiser"  of  Decem 
ber  27,  1799.  Monvel's  play  involves  a  hero  driven 
from  home  by  his  stepmother,  a  hopeless  love 
affair  with  his  employer's  daughter,  a  charge  of 
theft  and  a  threat  of  execution,  a  chance  meeting 
of  the  long  separated  son  and  father,  a  complete 
acquittal  and  a  touching  "bless  you  my  children." 

Charles-Michel,  Abbe  de  1'fipee,  was  one  of  the 
most  prominent  humanitarians  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  In  1755  he  established,  at  his  own  ex 
pense,  a  school  for  the  deaf  and  dumb,  and  became 
the  founder  of  the  modern  system  of  instructing 
deaf-mutes.  In  1799  Jean  Bouilly  wrote  a  play, 
"L'Abbe  de  1'fipee,"  wherein  the  philanthropist 
aids  one  of  his  pupils  in  regaining  an  estate  of 
which  he  has  been  villainously  deprived.  Being 
sufficiently  sentimental,  the  piece  had  a  triumphant 
career  in  France,6  and  was  much  admired  else- 

6  See  "New  York  Gazette,"  February  23,  1801. 
6  Ernest  Legouve,  "Soixante  Ans  de  Souvenirs,"  Paris, 
1887,  Vol.  I,  p.  88. 


198  B£)iHiam  SDunlap 

where.  Kotzebue  translated  it,  shortly  after  it  was 
written,  as  "Der  Taubstumme;  oder,  Der  Abbe 
de  1'fipee."  In  February,  1801,  Holcroft's  version, 
"Deaf  and  Dumb ;  or,  The  Orphan  Protected,"  be 
gan  a  successful  run  in  London.7  In  the  same 
year  Benjamin  Thompson  published  "Deaf  and 
Dumb;  or,  The  Orphan,"  a  literal  translation  of 
Kotzebue's  literal  translation.  Charles  Smith,  a 
New  Yorker,  in  1801  reprinted  Thompson's  ren 
dering. 

In  March,  1801,  Dunlap  staged  his  own  adapta 
tion  of  Bouilly's  play,  retaining  the  original  title. 
It  was  not  published,  but  we  know  that  he  went  to 
the  French,  and  not  to  the  German  of  Kotzebue.8 
A  critique  in  the  "New  York  Evening  Post"  of 
December  14  state'd  that  Dunlap's  piece  varied 
considerably  from  its  source,  several  new  scenes 
being  added,  and  certain  episodes  merely  narrated 
in  the  French  being  actually  represented.  His 
alteration  was  pronounced  an  interesting,  moral, 
and  well-constructed  drama. 

The  next  borrowing  from  France,  and  the  most 
popular,  was  "The  Voice  of  Nature,"  based  on  L. 
C.  Caigniez's  "Le  Jugement  de  Salomon"  (1802). 
The  latter,  founded  on  the  biblical  episode,  locates 
the  scene  in  Jerusalem.  Leila,  the  mother  of  an 
illegitimate  child  of  which  she  had  been  robbed 
some  years  before,  chances  to  recognize  her  off 
spring  by  means  of  birth-marks.  She  learns  that 

7  Genest,  Vol.  VII,  p.  501. 

8  "American  Theatre,"  p.  286. 


€f>e  SDramatit  €ran£iationg       1 99 

it  had  been  stolen  by  Tamira,  whose  husband 
threatened  divorce  unless  an  heir  was  born.  Both 
women  loudly  claiming  the  child,  the  matter  is 
brought  before  Solomon,  who  orders  that  the  boy 
be  bisected.  Leila  proves  her  maternity  by  re 
linquishing  her  claim.  Eliphal,  the  seducer  of 
Leila,  now  makes  amends  in  marriage. 

Translated  by  Boaden,  this  play  was  frequently 
presented  in  England  in  1802.  Perceiving  the 
tone  to  be  quite  unoriental,  Boaden  adroitly  trans 
planted  the  events  to  Sicily,  and  to  suit  the  new 
setting  renamed  most  of  the  characters ;  thus  King 
Alphonso  was  substituted  for  Solomon,  Alzira 
for  Tamira,  and  Rinaldo  for  Eliphal. 

In  February,  1803,  Dunlap  staged  his  version 
of  Caigniez's  drama,  imitating  Boaden  in  title, 
setting,  and  names.  The  American  text,  however, 
shows  no  indebtedness  to  the  English.  That  this 
inferior  play  was  a  European  success  must  be  at 
tributed  partly  to  the  peculiar  appeal  of  its  mother- 
and-child  sentimentality.  Dunlap  realized  that  the 
same  element  would  meet  the  hearty  approval  of 
his  countrymen,  and  he  took  pains  to  stress  it. 
He  added  an  original  epilogue,  in  which  Alzaira 
declares  that  no  woman  could  be  so  heartless  as 
the  one  she  has  been  impersonating,  for  the  voice 
of  nature  speaks  to  all  women  alike,  and  they 
cannot  but  obey.  What  virtuous  joy  the  translator 
must  have  experienced  when  the  press  styled  his 
new  piece  one  of  the  most  affecting  heart-appeals 
ever  known ! 9 

9  "New  York  Evening  Post,"  February  5,  1803. 


200 

"The  Voice  of  Nature"  is  of  interest  as  the  first 
representative  of  French  "melodrame"  to  make 
its  appearance  in  the  New  York  theatre.  The 
"melodrame"  was  a  distinct  type  of  play  which 
developed  in  France  from  sentimental  and  Gothic 
drama  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
species  was  constructed  according  to  a  pretty 
definite  formula;  it  required  as  the  essential  ele 
ments  of  the  plot  a  heroine  who  is  all  virtue,  a 
deep-dyed  villain,  a  protector  who  rescues  the 
lovely  victim  when  her  distress  is  at  its  height,  and 
generally  a  humorous  servant  who  also  champions 
the  cause  of  the  oppressed.  It  was  further  dis 
tinguished  by  the  use  of  descriptive  music;  the 
entrances,  the  exits,  the  pathetic  scenes,  and  the 
tense  passages  were  accompanied  by  orchestral 
music  in  keeping  with  the  character  or  event. 
Thus  the  plaintive  flute  was  made  to  suggest  the 
dolor  of  the  persecuted  heroine,  while  the  bass- 
viol  announced  the  villain.  Joy,  surprise,  suspense, 
despair,  and  divers  other  emotions  appropriate  to 
the  action  were  represented  by  the  musical  score. 
Still  other  ear-marks  of  "melodrame"  were  dances 
and  pageants,  relevantly  or  irrelevantly  introduced ; 
pantomime  to  assist  in  presenting  the  most  exciting 
and  breathless  episodes;  and  elaborate  stage  dec 
orations  and  mechanical  devices. 

The  father  of  "melodrame"  was  Guilbert  de 
Pixerecourt,  whose  "Victor  ou  TEnfant  de  la 
Foret"  was  brought  out  in  1797.  In  his  "Coelina 
ou  TEnfant  du  Mystere,"  brought  out  in  1800,  the 
form  was  seen  in  its  completeness.  The  piece  had 


Clje  SDramatic  €ran£lation£       20 1 

a  remarkable  run,  and  was  followed  by  dozens  of 
similar  plays  from  the  same  pen.  Another  pioneer 
was  Caigniez.  His  "Jugement  de  Salomon/'  which 
adheres  to  the  formula  with  omission  of  the 
humorous  element,  was  performed  three  hundred 
times  in  1802.  Thus  "melodrame"  became  the 
theatrical  fashion  in  France,  and  remained  so  for 
years. 

The  species,  with  all  its  adornments,  was  in 
troduced  to  England  in  1802  by  Thomas  Holcroft's 
"Tale  of  Mystery,"  a  translation  of  "Ccelina." 
Soon  the  British  stage  was  overrun  with  melo 
dramas.  Novels  and  plays  were  melodramatized, 
and  legitimate  drama  was  almost  driven  from  the 
boards.10 

Dunlap  gave  New  York  its  first  taste  of  the  new 
type  when  he  submitted  "The  Voice  of  Nature"  in 
February,  1803.  But  in  all  probability  the  audi 
ences  did  not  realize  that  they  were  witnessing  a 
novelty,  for  its  presentation  did  not  differ  ma 
terially  from  that  to  which  they  were  accustomed.11 
To  be  sure,  the  music  was  more  in  evidence,  but 
otherwise  Dunlap  omitted  much  of  the  melodra 
matic  machinery,  probably  because  he  did  not  find 
it  specified  in  the  French  text.  New  York  first 
saw  melodrama  in  its  full  glory  when  "A  Tale 
of  Mystery"  was  performed  on  March  16,  1803. 
It  was  advertised  and  reviewed  as  an  innovation, 


10  See    Paul   Ginisty,  "Le   Melodrame,"   Paris ;    A.   H. 
Thorndike,  "Tragedy,"  p.  334. 

11  It  was  published  in  1803  as  a  "drama  in  three  acts 
translated  and  altered  from  a  French  melodrame." 


202 

and  Dunlap  referred  to  it  as  "the  first  play  of  the 
kind  seen  in  the  New  World."12  He  was  able  to 
stage  the  piece  with  all  the  spectacular  accompani 
ments,  because  Holcroft,  who  had  seen  "melo- 
drame"  in  the  Parisian  theatres,  added  to  his  ver 
sion  all  necessary  directions,  which  were  left  out 
in  the  French  editions.  "A  Tale  of  Mystery"  met 
the  approval  of  New  York,  and  served  to  establish 
melodrama  as  one  of  the  popular  forms. 

In  April,  1804,  Dunlap  brought  out  another 
French  melodrama  of  his  translating,  Pixerecourt's 
"La  Femme  a  Deux  Maris."  It  was  first  acted  at 
Paris  in  1802,  and  was  repeated  hundreds  of  times 
all  over  France.13  Briefly  the  plot  is  this :  Eliza 
Werner,  a  supposed  widow,  is  happily  married  to 
Count  de  Fersen.  Her  first  husband,  Isadore 
Fritz,  a  villain  of  the  darkest  hue,  suddenly  ap 
pears,  accuses  her  of  faking  the  story  of  his  death, 
and  demands  her  property.  Upon  discovering  the 
existence  of  a  previous  husband,  the  Count  is  con 
vinced  that  he  and  Eliza  must  separate.  He  offers 
Fritz  a  large  sum  for  the  promise  of  non-inter 
ference.  Fritz,  however,  has  designs  on  the  whole 
estate.  He  plans  an  ambuscade  for  the  Count,  but 
Bataille,  the  humorous  concierge,  overhears,  and 
so  arranges  it  that  the  villain  falls  into  his  own 
trap. 

Two  British  versions  preceded  Dunlap's:  Miss 
Elizabeth  Gunning's  unacted  "Wife  with  Two 

12  "American  Theatre,"  p.  314. 

13  Ginisty,  p.  71. 


€lje  SDramatic  Cranglationg       203 

Husbands"  (1803),  a  close  translation;  and  James 
Cobb's  free  rendering  of  the  same  name,  acted  in 
1803.  The  American  adaptation  seems  to  have 
been  constructed  largely  from  its  two  English  pre 
cursors.  In  the  main  it  is  a  paraphrase  of  Miss 
Gunning's  text,  and  in  places  it  copies  her  ver 
batim.  From  Cobb  were  taken  some  of  the  altered 
names,  and  the  idea  of  substituting  an  Irishman, 
Armagh,  for  the  Sicilian,  Bataille.  Though  of 
miscellaneous  origin,  Dunlap's  "Wife  of  Two 
Husbands"  is  a  fairly  effective  play  which  does  not 
lack  for  intensity  in  the  climaxes.  In  its  presenta 
tion,  the  conventions  of  melodrama  apparently 
were  but  little  observed,  for  it  was  not  advertised 
or  published  as  such,  and  aside  from  dances  and 
songs  the  text  gives  no  indication  of  the  new  mode 
of  performance. 

During  the  time  when  sentimentalism  was  a 
fetish,  French  drama  was  infected  even  down  to 
the  opera-comique.  Within  this  genus  there  was  a 
rare  species  of  the  "purement  tragique  et  lar- 
moyant,"  to  which  belonged  "Nina  ou  la  Folle  par 
Amour"  (1786),  by  Joseph  Marsollier.14  This 
lugubrious  affair  tells  the  story  of  a  girl  whose 
father  breaks  her  engagement  with  Germieul  in 
consideration  of  a  wealthier  suitor.  In  a  duel 
between  the  two  wooers,  Germieul  is  severely 
wounded  and  left  for  dead.  Nina  goes  mad.  In 
due  time  Germieul  recovers  and  returns  to  an 
equivocal  bliss  with  the  loving  but  deranged  Nina. 

14  Gaiffe,  p.  479. 


204  IBilliam  SDunlap 

The  sentimentalism  and  unusual  French  vogue  of 
this  opera,  which  had  also  been  translated  in  Eng 
land  in  1787,  induced  Dunlap  to  attempt  a  version. 
It  was  brought  out  unsuccessfully  in  December, 
1804,  as  "Nina,"  and  was  never  published. 

Dunlap's  last  translation  was  made  from  a  then 
famous  French  bourgeois  tragedy,  written  in  the 
style  of  a  melodrama,  "Trente  Ans  ou  la  Vie  d'un 
Joueur"  (1827),  by  Prosper  Goubaux  (pseudonym 
"Dinaux")  and  Victor  Ducange.15  This  violently 
moral  play,  which  shows  the  surviving  influence  of 
Moore's  "Gamester,"  represents  three  periods  of  a 
gambler's  life,  after  successive  intervals  of  fifteen 
years  each.  It  traces  his  gradual  downfall  until 
he  becomes  a  pauper,  a  highwayman,  and  a 
murderer.  There  were  two  British  translations, 
"The  Hut  of  the  Red  Mountain ;  or,  Thirty  Years 
of  a  Gamester's  Life,"  and  "The  Gambler's  Fate; 
or,  A  Lapse  of  Twenty  Years,"  of  which  the  latter 
began  a  successful  run  at  the  Park  in  November, 
1827.  In  February,  1828,  Dunlap's  "Thirty  Years ; 
or,  The  Life  of  a  Gamester,"  appeared  at  the 
Bowery  Theatre.  The  American  version  was  not 
published,  but  I  have  compared  the  manuscript  at 
the  Yale  Library  with  the  original,  and  have  found 
it  to  be  a  close  rendering  with  occasional  cuttings. 

15  Legouve,  "Souvenirs,"  Vol.  II,  p.  29,  called  it  the  most 
popular  play  of  the  period. 


STJje  2Dramatic  Cranglationg       205 


ii 

PRIOR  to  Dunlap's  labors  as  a  translator,  German 
drama  was  but  scantily  represented  in  the  United 
States.  Frederick  H.  Wilkens,  in  his  monograph 
on  the  "Early  Influence  of  German  Literature  in 
America,"16  mentions  nothing  before  David  Rit- 
tenhouse's  unacted  rendering  of  Lessing's  "Miss 
Sara  Sampson,"  published  at  Philadelphia  in  1789. 
The  only  plays  on  our  stage  before  Dunlap's 
adaptations  were  Lessing's  "Minna  von  Barn- 
helm"  and  Schiller's  "Die  Rauber,"  both  per 
formed  in  1795  from  British  translations.  Four 
years  later  the  New  York  manager  had  brought 
the  drama  of  Germany  to  a  high  pitch  of  popular 
ity,  chiefly  through  the  meretricious  charms  of 
Kotzebue. 

One  of  the  most  amazing  phenomena  of  liter 
ature  was  August  Friedrich  Ferdinand  von  Kotze 
bue.  To-day  he  is  no  more  than  a  name.  At  the 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century  he  was  the  most 
famous  man  of  letters  in  Europe,  and  his  grip  on 
immortality  was  commonly  reckoned  as  sure  as 
Shakespeare's.  General  attention  was  first  at 
tracted  to  him  by  his  "Menschenhass  und  Reue" 
(1789),  the  success  of  which  was  overwhelming  in 
Germany,  and  rendered  him  the  public  idol.  With 
breath-taking  rapidity  followed  some  two  hundred 

16  "Americana  Germanica,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  in. 


2o6  H&iftiam  SDunlap 

and  fifteen  plays  before  his  death  in  iSiQ.17  After 
about  1800  his  vogue  at  home  waned  rapidly,  only 
a  handful  of  his  dramas  retaining  a  place  in  the 
theatres.  The  chief  reasons  for  his  meteoric  rise 
are  three:  First,  Kotzebue  was  extremely  skilful 
in  producing  superficial  effectiveness  by  bizarre 
and  exciting  situations  and  showy  characters; 
while,  except  for  Schiller,  there  was  no  other  Ger 
man  playwright  at  this  time  capable  of  making  a 
popular  appeal.  Second,  by  presenting  the  aristo 
crat  as  vicious,  the  common  man  as  the  embodi 
ment  of  virtue,  he  caught  the  favor  of  the  growing 
spirit  of  democracy  which  had  been  fostered  by 
the  French  Revolution.  Third,  he  hit  the  taste  of 
the  time  by  constant  use  of  sentimentality. 

In  writing  bourgeois  dramas  of  sentiment, 
Kotzebue  was  following  the  fashion  set  for  Ger 
many  by  Lessing  when,  in  1755,  under  the  in 
fluence  of  Lillo  and  the  French  "comedie  larmoy- 
ante,"  he  wrote  "Miss  Sara  Sampson."  This 
"biirgerliche  Tragoedie"  met  with  large  success,  as 
did  his  sentimental  comedy,  "Minna  von  Barn- 
helm"  (1767).  Through  the  remainder  of  the 
century  these  two  types  prevailed.  In  1784  Schil 
ler's  "Kabale  und  Liebe"  reached  the  high-water 
mark  of  German  bourgeois  tragedy.  About  this 
time  IfBand  was  producing  a  prosperous  series  of 
moral  and  moving  comedies  of  every-day  life. 
Following  these  examples,  Kotzebue  proclaimed 
on  every  occasion  the  two  shibboleths  of  his  day, 

17  Charles  Rabany,  "Kotzebue :  sa  Vie  et  son  Temps," 
Paris,  1893 ;  see  his  bibliography. 


Clje  SDrmtiatic  ^Translation^       207 

feeling   and   democracy,    and   captured   his   gen 
eration. 

As  the  century  ended  England  became  as  de 
lirious  with  the  Kotzebuean  fever  as  Germany, 
and  for  much  the  same  reasons.  British  drama 
was  at  a  very  low  ebb;  Lewis,  Holcroft,  Colman, 
and  Dibdin  were  the  best  that  England  could  claim, 
and  these  the  German  writer  easily  surpassed  in 
the  qualities  that  are  necessary  for  immediate  the 
atrical  success.  Kotzebue's  fame  across  the  Chan 
nel  was  first  established  by  the  unacted  transla 
tion  of  "Die  Negersklaven"  in  1796,  which  made 
a  pronounced  impression  because  of  its  appropri 
ateness  to  the  slave  agitation.  Its  author's  career 
on  the  English  stage  was  inaugurated  at  Drury 
Lane  in  1798  by  Sheridan's  translation  of  "Men- 
schenhass  und  Reue"  under  the  title  of  "The 
Stranger."  It  was  belauded  by  the  majority  of  the 
papers  and  reviews.  The  "Times"  declared:  "Its 
beauties  'are  not  of  an  age,  but  of  all  times.'  "  It 
was  given  twenty-six  performances  the  first 
season,  and  appeared  regularly  thereafter  for 
many  years.  As  a  rival  piece  Covent  Garden  in 
the  same  year  brought  out  "Lovers'  Vows,"  an 
adaptation  of  "Das  Kind  der  Liebe."  It  was  given 
forty-two  times  this  season,  and  continued  in  the 
London  repertories  until  1829.  Sheridan  again 
pressed  Kotzebue  into  the  service  of  his  depleted 
finances  in  1799  by  presenting  "Pizarro,"  based  on 
"Die  Spanier  in  Peru."  During  the  first  twelve 
months  of  its  run  it  was  given  sixty-seven  times, 
and  for  ten  years  it  filled  the  theatre  wherever  and 


2o8  iteiHiam  SDunlap 

whenever  played.  It  went  to  the  twenty-sixth  edi 
tion  in  1800.  Numerous  other  Kotzebue  dramas 
were  brought  forward  during  the  last  three  years 
of  the  century,  but  after  1800  the  German  mania 
subsided,  and  only  an  occasional  new  piece  was  ac 
corded  a  brief  trial,  while  "The  Stranger,"  "Lov 
ers'  Vows,"  and  "Pizarro"  alone  retained  a  regular 
place  in  the  British  theatres.18 

The  following  is  a  list  of  Kotzebue's  plays  which 
were  translated  in  England,  arranged  approx 
imately  in  the  order  of  their  introduction  to  the 
public.19 

Translation  first  acted  First  published 

"Die  Negersklaven" 1796 

"Die  Indianer  in  England". . .  .by  i8oo20  ....  1796 

"Menschenhass  und  Reue" 1798 1798 

"Das  Kind  der  Liebe" 1798 1798 

"Adelheid  von  Wulfingen" 1798 

"Der  Graf  von  Burgund" 1799 1798 

"Graf  Benyowski" 1811 1798 

"Die  Versohnung" 1799 1799 

"Die  Spanier  in  Peru" 1799 1799 

"Die  Wittwe  und  das  Reitpferd".  1799 1799 

"Der  Opfertod" 1799 1799 

"Armut  und  Edelsinn"   1799 1799 

"Das  Schreibepult" 1799 1799 

"Die  Sonnenjungfrau" 1812 1799 

18  Walter  Sellier,  "Kotzebue  in  England,"  Leipzig,  1901. 

19  This   table    is    compiled    from   the   British    Museum 
Catalogue,  Genest,  and  Sellier. 

20  Genest   mentions   no   performance   of   it,   but   Anne 
Plumptre's  translation  of  Kotzebue's  autobiography,  Lon 
don,  1800,  p.  380,  states  that  it  was  acted  at  Stamford. 


€f)c  SDramatic  Cranglatitmg       209 

Translation  first  acted  First  published 

"Die  Edle  Luge" 1799 

"Die  Corsen" 1799 

"Falsche  Scham" 1799 

"La  Perouse" 1801 1799 

"Die  Silberne  Hochzeit" 1799 

"Die  Verlaumder" 1799 

"Die  Uble  Laune" 1799 

"Joanna  von  Montfaucon" 1800 1800 

"Der  Wildfang" 1800 1805 

"Der  Taubstumme" 1801 1801 

"Der  Weibliche  Jacobiner-Klubb" 1801 

"Die  Kreuzfahrer" 1806 

"Eduard  in  Schottland" 1808 1808 

"Blind  Geladen" 1812 1812 

"Die  Beiden  Klingsberg" 1814 

"Der  Rehbock" 1824 

"Die  Hussiten  vor  Naumburg" 1830 

"Die  Verwandtschaf  ten" 1837 

"Die  Organe  des  Gehirns" 1838 

"Der  Wirrwarr" 1842 

A  few  specimens  of  the  English  adulation  show 
ered  on  Kotzebue  may  be  of  interest: 

"It  is  no  feeble  symptom  of  interior  selfishness, 
not  to  relish  the  general  flow  of  his  sentiments; 
not  to  glow  with  sympathetic  rapture,  while  this 
Rousseau  of  the  drama  delineates  the  sweet  affec 
tions  and  the  noble  sacrifices  which  abound  among 
his  heroes  and  heroines,  and  which  are  so  well 
adapted  to  electrify  an  audience."— "Monthly  Re 
view;  or,  Literary  Journal,"  Vol.  XXIX,  p.  102. 


2 1  o  JDifliam  SPunlap 

"The  rest  of  the  writers  for  the  stage  will  do 
well  to  study  the  German  poet;  and  we  hope  that 
their  application  may  recall  them  from  Blue  Beards 
and  Spectres  to  a  true  copy  of  human  life"— 
"Monthly  Review;  or,  Literary  Journal,"  Vol. 
XXVI,  p.  190. 

"There  is,  in  his  works,  something  exceedingly 
congenial  to  the  cast  of  English  character,  and  to 
the  predominant  tone  of  English  sentiment.  It  is 
Shakespeare,  without  his  quibbles,  his  negligences, 
his  incongruities,  his  violations  of  the  most  indis 
pensable  dramatic  probabilities.  ...  It  is  Shake 
speare,  still  endowed  with  all  that  moral  wisdom 
which  renders  his  works  the  best  school  of  civil 
sagacity,  and  makes  the  deep  study  of  them  almost 
a  perfect  substitute  for  real  experience  in  the 
varied  scenes  of  human  life." — Preface  to  "Self- 
Immolation,"  by  Henry  Neuman,  1799. 

But  the  "German  Shakespeare's"  vogue  did  not 
go  unchallenged.  With  the  appearance  of  "The 
Stranger"  began  the  activities  of  an  opposition 
party  headed  by  the  Tories,  the  anti-revolutionists. 
Kotzebue's  disregard  for  accepted  religion,  morals, 
and  social  rank  was  violently  castigated.  Certain 
of  his  enemies  thus  vented  their  spleen : 

"Let  us,  for  God's  sake,  look  with  a  little  more 
circumspection  at  the  claims  of  these  German 
philosophers,  before  we  so  readily  admit  the  value 
of  them;  nor  suffer  the  public  taste  to  be  vitiated 
thus,  without  making  one  single  attempt  to  expose 


Cfje  SDramaric  OTranglationg       2 1 1 

the  absurdity  of  its  seducer.  My  blood  boils  with 
indignation  when  I  see  my  beloved  Shakespeare, 
Otway,  Rowe,  and  all  those  ornaments  of  my  na 
tive  country,  thrust  aside,  to  make  way  for  the 
filthy  effusions  of  this  German  dunce ! 

"Forbid  it  Britons!— forbid  it  common  sense!" 
— "Anti- Jacobin  Review,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  210. 

"We  wish  that  it  was  unlawful  to  translate  them 
[Kotzebue's  plays],  except  into  Coptic,  and  that 
they  were  to  be  preserved  in  that  language  only." 
-"British  Critic,"  Vol.  XV,  p.  431. 

"When  it  is  considered  how  large  a  quantity  of 
Kotzebue  we  have  been  obliged  to  swallow,  the 
reader  cannot  wonder  at  our  shuddering  when  a 
fresh  dose  is  offered  to  us.  There  is,  alas!  no 
honey  around  the  edges  of  the  nauseating  cup." 
—"Monthly  Review;  or,  Literary  Journal,"  Vol. 
XXXII,  p.  326. 

With  the  Kotzebuean  fad  raging  in  Europe, 
William  Dunlap  was  not  slow  to  perceive  that  his 
best  interests  demanded  its  immediate  importation 
to  the  United  States.  Accordingly,  on  December 
10,  1798,  the  New  York  theatre  presented  to  a  de 
lighted  audience  that  great  London  favorite  (best 
of  recommendations),  "The  Stranger."  Already 
England  had  been  blest  with  three  translations  of 
"Menschenhass  und  Reue,"  Papendick's,  Schinck's, 
and  Thompson's,  in  addition  to  Sheridan's  altera 
tion  for  the  stage,  a  composite  of  the  three.  The 
New  York  manager  seems  not  to  have  availed  him 
self  of  any  of  these.  His  German  was  rather 


2 1 2  i&illtam  SDunlap 

meagre  for  purposes  of  translation,  but  "having 
got  possession  of  a  wretched  publication  in  which 
the  plot  and  part  of  the  dialogue  of  Kotzebue's 
play  were  given,  in  language  neither  German  nor 
English,  he  wrote  a  play  founded  on  these  mate 
rials.  .  .  .  The  author  had  adopted  the  names 
from  the  English  play-bills,  as  well  as  the  name 
by  which  Kotzebue's  play  was  performed  in  Lon 
don,  and  the  public  were  at  liberty  to  suppose  that 
that  which  delighted  them  had  been  sanctioned  by 
a  London  audience."21 

The  American  "Stranger"  was  never  published, 
but  we  may  assume  that  it  reproduced  the  original 
in  outline  at  least.  The  story  as  told  by  Kotzebue 
is  this:  An  anonymous  misanthrope  is  living  in 
seclusion.  Near  him  dwells  a  woman,  Eulalia 
(called  Mrs.  H alter  in  the  English  theatrical  ver 
sion),  who  passes  her  days  in  repentance  for  hav 
ing  deserted  her  husband  years  before.  The 
Stranger  and  Eulalia  chance  to  meet,  and  discover 
that  they  are  husband  and  wife.  After  a  touching 
renunciation,  they  are  about  to  part  forever,  when 
their  two  small  children  appear  and  draw  the  for 
giving  pair  into  each  other's  arms. 

How  far  New  York  approved  of  this  piece  of 
sentimentality  may  be  gathered  from  a  critique  in 
the  "Commercial  Advertiser"  of  December  17, 
1798 :  "I  believe  it  may  be  asserted  that  this  Drama 
is  without  a  parallel."  The  novelty  of  its  incidents, 
their  arrangement  for  alternate  laughter  and  tears, 
and  especially  its  high  moral  tone  and  emotional 

21  "American  Theatre,"  p.  253. 


€f)e  Dramatic  €ran£lation£       2 1 3 

truth,  impressed  the  writer  as  unique.  "If  all  plays 
were  like  this,  and  if  all  audiences  were  equally 
attentive  and  susceptible,  the  question  as  to  the 
usefulness  of  the  Theatres  might  easily  be  de 
cided;  since  no  man  who  witnessed  this  play  can 
hesitate  a  moment  to  admit  that  he  came  away  a 
better  man  than  he  went."  The  same  journal  for 
January  17,  1800,  stated  that  the  American  trans 
lation  of  "The  Stranger"  was  held  superior  to 
Kotzebue's  original,— high  praise,  indeed,  for  a 
native  product. 

The  public  appetite,  whetted  by  its  first  taste  of 
the  German  dramatist,  soon  demanded  additional 
morsels  of  the  same  savory  variety.  In  the  words 
of  the  "Commercial  Advertiser"  of  March  7,  1799, 
"To  see  something  more  from  the  pen  of  Kotze- 
bue  is  now  the  general  wish,"  a  desire  that  was 
satisfied  when  Dunlap  brought  forward  "Lovers' 
Vows," — likewise  the  second  play  on  the  London 
stage. 

The  plot  has  to  do  with  a  baron  who  seduces  a 
poor  girl,  and  who  in  later  years,  being  discovered 
and  denounced  by  his  son,  is  persuaded  to  marry 
the  victim  of  his  youthful  folly. 

The  English  acting  version  of  this  drama  was 
Mrs.  Inchbald's  "Lovers'  Vows"  (1798).  In  the 
same  year  Stephen  Porter  and  Anne  Plumptre 
both  translated  it.  Dunlap  stated  that  his  render 
ing  was  not  printed,22  but  in  1814  an  edition  of 
"Lovers'  Vows"  was  published  with  his  name  on 

22  "American  Theatre,"  p.  261. 


214  Brilliant  SDunlap 

the  title-page,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it 
was  Dunlap's  work.  This  edition  proves  to  be  a 
copy  of  Plumptre's  "Natural  Son,"  with  a  little 
cutting  and  piecing  and  some  renaming  of  the 
characters,  but  with  no  evidence  of  first-hand  use 
of  Kotzebue.  The  "Monthly  Magazine,  and  Amer 
ican  Review"23  reported  that  the  American  ver 
sion  was  said  to  be  Plumptre's  translation  fitted 
for  a  local  audience  by  the  director  of  the  New 
York  theatre.  An  extract  quoted  from  the  direc 
tor's  manuscript  is  identical  with  a  passage  in  the 
edition  of  1814,  and  differs  in  names  of  characters 
and  other  details  from  all  other  versions.  We  must 
conclude  then  that  the  New  York  edition  of  "Lov 
ers'  Vows"  is  Dunlap's,  the  publication  of  which 
he  somehow  failed  to  acknowledge  in  his  stage 
history. 

He  did  well  to  work  on  the  basis  of  Plumptre's 
rather  than  Inchbald's  translation,  since  the  former 
possesses  considerably  more  attractiveness  of  char 
acter  and  dialogue.  By  somewhat  enlivening  this 
literal  rendering,  he  produced  a  play  which  justi 
fied  the  above-mentioned  "Monthly  Magazine," 
edited  by  Charles  Brockden  Brown,  in  congratu 
lating  New  York  on  the  superiority  of  its  acting 
version  to  that  of  London.  The  "Commercial  Ad 
vertiser"  of  March  12,  in  reviewing  the  play,  said: 

"Last  evening,  with  curiosity  alive  and  expecta 
tion   of    a    renewal   of    that    delight    which    the 
'Stranger'  had  so  repeatedly  pour'd  into  the  hearts 
23  Vol.  I,  p.  96. 


Cljc  SDramatic  Crangiationg       2 1 5 

of  listening  thousands,  a  crowded  audience  at 
tended  our  Theatre  to  witness  the  first  exhibition 
of  'Lovers*  Vows/  and  we  will  venture  to  say  that 
never  was  so  high  raised  curiosity  so  fully  grati 
fied.  ...  It  is  a  just  picture  of  natural  circum 
stances  thrown  together  with  exquisite  skill  for  the 
purpose  of  painting  passion  and  teaching  virtue." 

Dunlap  followed  up  these  two  achievements  with 
"Count  Benyowski,"  of  which  a  translation  by 
Render  had  already  been  printed  in  London.  The 
American  manuscript  was  not  published,  but  it  was 
a  free  rendering,  judging  from  its  author's  state 
ment  that  "the  literal  translations  of  Count  Ben 
yowski  can  give  no  idea  of  the  drama  as  prepared 
for  the  New  York  stage."24  The  scene  of  Kotze- 
bue's  play  is  laid  in  a  Russian  exile  station  whither 
Benyowski,  an  Austrian,  has  been  banished.  Un 
der  his  leadership  the  exiles  engage  in  a  rebellion. 
The  governor's  daughter,  with  whom  Benyowski, 
though  married,  has  fallen  in  love,  is  about  to 
accompany  him  in  his  flight,  but  her  father  en 
treats  her  to  remain,  and  the  Austrian  at  last 
relinquishes  her.  This  heroic  drama  did  not  attain 
the  popularity  of  its  two  predecessors. 

The  season's  final  offering  in  the  way  of  adap 
tation  from  the  Teutonic  dramatist  was  "Indians 
in  England,"  the  reception  of  which  was  commen 
surate  with  its  merits, — it  was  given  but  once,  and 
Dunlap  saw  no  reason  for  printing  it.  Wherefore 

24  "American  Theatre,"  p.  261. 


216  William  2DunIap 

its  relation  to  Alexander  Thomson's  translation  of 
1796  cannot  be  determined.  The  original  plot  is  as 
vapid  as  a  plot  could  be.  A  wealthy  East  Indian 
is  on  the  verge  of  marrying  an  English  girl  when 
his  long-lost  son,  the  girl's  lover,  unexpectedly 
turns  up,  and  the  father  steps  aside. 

But  New  York  was  not  yet  sated  with  German 
plays.  The  "Commercial  Advertiser"  of  Novem 
ber  9,  1799,  voiced  the  general  opinion  when  it 
expressed  the  hope  that  at  the  reopening  of  the 
theatre  the  old  Kotzebuean  favorites  might  again 
be  seen,  "with  the  addition  of  such  other  Diamonds 
as  the  Manager  may  have  drawn  from  the  German 
mine,  during  the  leisure  of  summer."  The  first 
diamond  to  dazzle  the  eager  eyes  was  "Self-immo 
lation  ;  or,  The  Sacrifice  of  Love,"  a  translation  of 
the  atrocious  "Der  Opfertod."  Both  McKee25  and 
Wegelin  have  included  it  in  their  bibliographies  of 
Dunlap,  but  the  "History  of  the  American  The 
atre"  makes  no  mention  of  it  whatever.  The 
dramatis  persona,  as  printed  in  the  "Commercial 
Advertiser"  of  November  28,  was  identical  with 
that  of  Neuman's  translation  published  at  Dublin 
earlier  in  the  year  under  the  exact  title  employed 
at  New  York.  Dunlap  always  felt  free  to  borrow 
from  other  translators,  but  he  almost  never 
adopted  title  and  dramatis  persona  without  at  least 
a  slight  change.  Since  there  is  nothing  to  indicate 
his  authorship,  it  seems  evident  that  the  New  York 

25  Thomas  J.  McKee's  introduction  to  "The  Father," 
No.  2  of  Publications  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  1887,  con 
tains  a  list  of  Dunlap's  plays. 


€ljc  SDramatic  €ran£lation£       217 

acting  version  of  "Self-Immolation"  was  in  reality 
Neuman's. 

The  support  of  the  Park  Theatre  in  1799-1800 
was  "False  Shame;  or,  The  American  Orphan  in 
Germany,"  a  serious  comedy  built  around  the  idea 
that  a  false  sense  of  delicacy,  which  prevents  entire 
confidence  between  husbands  and  wives  or  lovers, 
is  the  cause  of  much  unhappiness.  An  anonymous 
adaptation  of  "Falsche  Scham"  was  printed  in 
London  in  1799,  but  Dunlap  was  under  no  obliga 
tion  to  it.  On  this  occasion  he  essayed  an  entirely 
independent  rendering,  with  such  results  as  might 
have  been  expected  from  a  translator  who  was 
unused  to  trusting  himself  alone.  His  play  is 
closely  literal  and  often  stiffly  German  in  its 
idioms.  It  reproduces  all  the  wordiness  of  the 
original,  much  of  which  might  well  be  spared. 
Because  of  its  too  great  fidelity  it  is  one  of  our 
author's  less  satisfactory  translations.  But  the  plot 
is  interesting  if  shallow,  and  the  comedy  was  well 
received  by  the  public  and  warmly  praised  by  the 
critics. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Dunlap's  version  was 
ever  published,  although  two  editions  have  been 
ascribed  to  him,  one  printed  at  Charleston  in  1800 
and  the  other  at  New  York  in  the  same  year.  Both, 
however,  prove  to  be  exact  reprints  of  the  anony 
mous  London  play.  Only  one  other  American  edi 
tion  is  known,  and  it  bears  the  name  of  Charles 
Smith.26 

26  For  the  text  of  Dunlap's  translation,  I  have  con 
sulted  the  manuscript  in  the  Brown  University  Library. 


218 

Perhaps  the  most  skilful  and  independent  of 
Dunlap's  adaptations  was  "The  Wild  Goose 
Chace,"  acted  early  in  1800, — the  first  rendering 
of  "Der  Wildfang"  into  the  English  language  to 
appear  on  any  stage.  It  is  a  brisk  farce,  chiefly 
composed  of  the  tricks  by  which  Frederick,  an 
amorous  youth  of  one  and  twenty,  attempts  to  woo 
and  win  Nannette,  the  daughter  of  an  old  dragon, 
Madam  Brumbach.  After  a  series  of  entertaining 
escapades,  Frederick  discovers  that  his  tutor  is  the 
father  of  Nannette,  and  from  him  he  gains  per 
mission  to  marry. 

This  is  another  instance  in  which  Dunlap  did  not 
rely  on  a  previous  translation  for  assistance,  yet 
never  did  he  do  better  work.  He  followed  the  Ger 
man  plot  closely,  and  always  reproduced  the  inten 
tion  of  the  author,  but  by  a  free  textual  rendering 
he  enlivened  and  adorned  a  rather  bare  comedy. 
Kotzebue's  terrific  rate  of  composition  often  re 
sulted  in  sketchiness  and  lack  of  finish.  Dunlap 
in  this  instance  expanded  the  hasty  dialogue, 
adding  spice  and  humor,  and  rounding  out  some 
of  the  characters.  Baron  Piffleburg,  pursued  by 
Madam  Brumbach,  especially  profited  in  the  altera 
tion.  From  a  somewhat  meagre  figure  he  became 
a  distinct  personality,  a  good  acting  part.  Again, 
the  shadowy  hair-dresser  was  made  a  humorous 
Frenchman  with  a  strong  Gallic  accent.  Another 
change  was  the  insertion  of  several  songs  without 
warrant  from  Kotzebue,  a  liberty  often  taken 
with  him  on  the  English  stage.27  Dunlap's  pur- 
27  A.  H.  Thorndike,  'Tragedy,"  p.  332. 


<£l)e  SDramatic  €ran£lation£       2 1 9 

pose  throughout  was  theatrical  effectiveness,  and 
he  succeeded  unusually  well. 

"Der  Wildfang"  was  also  translated  sometime 
in  1800  by  Charles  Smith,  and  printed  as  "The 
Wild  Youth."  Smith  has  already  been  mentioned 
in  this  chapter,  so  a  word  concerning  him  will  be 
in  place  here.  He  was  a  New  York  bookseller  and 
editor  who  set  out  to  translate  the  whole  of  Kotze- 
bue,  but  after  laboring  through  three  plays  his  zeal 
abated  and  he  relapsed  into  reprinting  London 
editions.28  Surely  a  more  incompetent  person 
never  tortured  foreign  literature  into  the  English 
language.  His  method  was  to  reproduce  the  author 
with  excruciating  literalness,  as  a  few  clauses  from 
the  play  under  discussion  will  show:  "I  am  with 
her  but  three  weeks,"  "the  second  is  run  away," 
"she  is  beautiful  like  a  rose,"  "just  by  that  the 
soonest."  From  such  a  rival  Dunlap  had  nothing 
to  fear. 

Apparently  the  only  British  adaptation  of  the 

28  F.  H.  Wilkens,  "Americana  Germanica,"  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  125.  According  to  Mr.  Wegelin's  "Early  American 
Plays,"  Smith's  translations  and  reprints  are  these: 
"Count  of  Burgundy"  (1798;  however,  the  "Monthly 
Magazine,"  Vol.  II,  p.  135,  said  his  first  translation  was 
made  in  1800),  "Self-immolation"  (1800),  "The  Wild 
Youth"  (1800),  "La  Perouse"  (1800),  "The  Virgin  of  the 
Sun"  (1800),  "Adelaide  of  Wulfingen"  (1800),  "The 
Force  of  Calumny"  (1800),  "The  Happy  Family"  (1800), 
"Pizarro"  (1800),  "The  East  Indian"  (1800),  "Indigence 
and  Nobleness  of  Mind"  (1800),  "The  Widow  and  the 
Riding  Horse"  (1800),  "False  Shame;  or,  The  American 
Orphan  in  Germany"  (1800),  "Abbe  de  1'fipee;  or,  The 
Orphan"  (1801),  "Fraternal  Discord"  (1801),  "The  Writ 
ing  Desk"  (1801),  "The  Beautiful  Unknown"  (1803). 


2  20  JBiHiam  SDunlap 

piece  was  "Of  Age  Tomorrow,"  a  musical  enter 
tainment  by  Thomas  Dibdin,  first  acted  on  Feb 
ruary  i,  1800,  and  printed  in  1805.  It  is  a  free  and 
unsatisfactory  version,  the  last  act  having  been 
entirely  omitted. 

Dunlap's  success  was  acknowledged  by  the 
critics.  The  "Commercial  Advertiser"  of  January 
25,  1800,  favorably  compared  "The  Wild  Goose 
Chace"  with  the  best  English  farces  and  comic 
operas,  adding  that  it  was  enthusiastically  re 
ceived  by  an  audience  constantly  convulsed  with 
laughter.  The  "Monthly  Magazine"  pronounced 
this  alteration  more  enjoyable  than  the  original, 
and  much  superior  to  Smith's.  His  "is  far  too 
literal  a  version,  and  its  language  too  flat  and 
vulgar  to  afford  us  any  pleasure  in  the  perusal. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Dunlap  is  more  bold  and  free;  but  this 
freedom  is  under  the  guidance  of  sound  discretion. 
His  experience,  as  director  of  the  Theatre,  has  en 
abled  him  to  discern  what  would  be  most  ac 
ceptable,  and  to  adapt  his  translation  to  the  opinion 
and  taste  of  the  public."29  But  this  article  made 
one  of  the  early  protests  against  Kotzebue  when  it 
advised  the  pruning  of  the  faulty  opinions,  the 
vulgarity  and  immorality  of  the  German  dramatist. 

About  two  weeks  after  the  premiere  of  "The 
Wild  Goose  Chace,"  "The  Force  of  Calumny," 
adapted  by  Dunlap  from  "Die  Verlaumder,"  was 
performed.  It  presents  a  pathetic  picture  of  the 
suspicion  engendered  and  the  misery  endured 

2»  Vol.  Ill,  p.  226. 


€f)e  SDramatic  €ran£lation£       2  2 1 

through  malicious  lying.  In  the  end,  of  course,  the 
misunderstanding  is  removed,  and  the  calumniator 
punished.  The  play  was  not  known  on  the  English 
stage,  but  in  1799  Anne  Plumptre  published  a 
translation,  which  Charles  Smith  reprinted  in  1800. 
What  relation  Dunlap's  version  bore  to  the  English 
cannot  be  determined,  since  his  was  not  printed. 
Its  vogue  was  not  equal  to  that  of  several  kindred 
efforts,  yet  the  declaration  of  the  "Commercial 
Advertiser"  on  February  7,  1800,  that  no  play  of 
Kotzebue's  was  so  uniformly  interesting,  would 
indicate  that  it  found  admirers  at  its  first  ap 
pearance. 

A  second  translation  to  which  Dunlap's  title  is 
not  clear  is  "The  Count  of  Burgundy,"  first  acted 
in  March,  1800.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  "His 
tory  of  the  American  Theatre,"  but  Ireland,  Mc- 
Kee,  and  Wegelin  have  attributed  it  to  him. 
Identity  of  dramatis  persona30  suggests  that  the 
American  stage  version  was  Plumptre's  rendering, 
somewhat  altered,  perhaps,  by  the  New  York 
manager.  I  suppose  the  point  cannot  be  deter 
mined  with  certainty,  and  the  inferiority  of  the 
original  makes  it  a  matter  of  little  importance. 
"Der  Graf  von  Burgund"  deals  with  the  time- 
honored  theme  of  a  youth  raised  in  obscurity,  who 
turns  out  to  be  the  heir  to  a  throne.  It  was  cen 
sured  by  the  "Monthly  Magazine"  for  its  weari- 
someness  and  its  lack  of  art  and  ingenuity.31 

30  See  "Commercial  Advertiser,"  March  3,  1800,  for  the 
New  York  cast, 
si  Vol.  II,  pp.  133  ff. 


222  i©illiam  SDimlap 

One  of  Dunlap's  most  popular  adaptations  from 
the  German  was  "The  Virgin  of  the  Sun,"  brought 
out  in  the  spring  of  1800.  The  year  before,  three 
versions  had  been  published  in  London :  Plump- 
tre's,  Thompson's,  and  Lawrence's;  it  did  not 
appear  on  the  English  stage,  however,  until  1812. 
In  1800  Lawrence's  rendering  was  reprinted  by 
Charles  Smith.  Our  author's  play  was  constructed 
from  the  original  with  the  help  of  Plumptre's  lit 
eral  translation.  The  latter  guided  him  through 
out  the  task,  but  in  only  two  places  did  he  ap 
propriate  entire  sections  verbatim.  He  copied  the 
last  of  Act  II  and  the  first  of  Act  III,  the  best 
portions  of  her  work. 

The  events  of  the  drama  occur  among  the  sun- 
worshipers  of  Peru.  Cora,  a  virgin  of  the  sun,  is 
loved  by  Rolla,  a  native,  and  Alonzo,  a  Spaniard. 
For  Alonzo  she  has  broken  her  vow  of  chastity, 
and  is  about  to  become  a  mother.  Rolla,  convinced 
of  their  love,  relinquishes  his  claims  and  promises 
to  be  as  a  brother.  When  the  high  priestess  dis 
covers  Cora's  plight  she  threatens  her  with  living 
burial,  but  Cora  is  sure  that  she  has  done  no  wrong 
in  thus  obeying  the  voice  of  nature.  The  guilty 
pair  are  placed  on  trial  before  the  king  and  priests. 
A  sentence  of  death  is  about  to  be  pronounced, 
when  Rolla  rushes  in  with  a  band  of  followers  to 
enforce  mercy.  Cora  persuades  him  to  lay  down 
his  arms,  whereupon  the  king  pardons  all  the 
offenders. 

Dunlap's  main  alterations  of  both  Kotzebue  and 
Plumptre  were  an  occasional  rearrangement  of 


€f)e  SDramatic  €ratt£lation£       223 

episodes,  and — a  feature  praised  by  Genest32 — a 
generous  cutting  of  the  long-winded  verbiage 
which  frequently  retards  the  action  and  dulls  the 
interest.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  play 
thus  produced  was  more  likely  to  go  well  than 
Kotzebue's  or  Plumptre's.  Such  was  the  opinion 
of  his  contemporaries.  The  "Monthly  Magazine" 
spoke  as  follows : 

"The  language  of  passion  which  he  [Rolla] 
utters,  sometimes  borders,  perhaps,  on  extrava 
gance;  but  this  is  less  discernible  in  the  play  of 
Mr.  D.  than  in  the  original.  In  the  former  will 
be  found  but  few  of  those  faults  in  style  and  senti 
ment  which  occur  in  the  more  literal  and  faithful 
translations.  .  .  .  The  minuter  differences  of  ex 
pression,  by  which  the  original  is  softened  and 
chastized,  are  too  many  to  be  particularized,  and 
render  the  production  of  Mr.  D.,  to  an  English 
reader,  superior  to  other  translations."33 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Dunlap's  printed 
version  was  not  the  one  which  first  appeared  at 
the  Park  Theatre.  The  "Commercial  Advertiser" 
of  March  15,  1800,  called  the  stage  play  Miss 
Plumptre's,  and  correctly,  I  think.  There  is  at  the 
New  York  Society  Library  a  copy  of  her  transla 
tion,  altered  as  a  prompt-book  in  Dunlap's  unmis 
takable  penmanship.  Considerable  portions  are 
cut  and  new  renderings  are  freely  substituted.  It 
would  seem  that  the  manager  doctored  up 

32  Vol.  VIII,  p.  290. 

33  Vol.  II,  p.  367. 


224  William  SDunlap 

Plumptre  in  his  haste  to  present  another  German 
novelty;  then  during  the  next  two  weeks  he  re 
vised  and  improved  his  alteration,  and  sent  it  to  the 
press. 

Just  two  weeks  after  the  premiere  of  "The 
Virgin  of  the  Sun,"  its  sequel,  "Pizarro  in  Peru; 
or,  The  Death  of  Rolla,"  was  performed  at  the 
Park.  It  soon  gained  almost  as  much  of  a  hold  in 
America  as  it  had  in  England,  where  at  least  four 
different  translations  were  printed  in  1799: 
Sheridan's,  Button's,  Lewis's,  and  Plumptre's. 
At  New  York,  sometime  in  1800,  Smith  published 
his  "Pizarro,"  practically  a  copy  of  Sheridan. 

Dunlap's  play  was  in  the  main  a  revision  of 
Sheridan's  very  free  adaptation,  and  approximately 
a  third  of  the  text  was  even  copied  directly  from 
him. 

The  story  as  told  by  Dunlap  is  substantially 
faithful  to  Kotzebue.  Pizarro,  a  heartless  Spanish 
conqueror,  is  invading  Peru  accompanied  by  El 
vira,  his  mistress.  Alonso  and  Rolla,  with  other 
Peruvians,  prepare  to  resist.  Alonso  is  captured 
by  the  Spaniards  and  imprisoned  to  await  death, 
but  Rolla  succeeds  in  freeing  him.  As  the  Peru 
vian  is  leaving  the  camp,  he  spies  the  child  of  Cora 
and  Alonso  in  the  hands  of  the  Spanish  soldiers. 
Seizing  the  infant,  he  flees  amid  a  shower  of 
bullets,  and  escapes,  with  a  fatal  wound  in  his 
side.  He  reaches  the  retreat  of  the  distracted  pair, 
restores  the  child  and  dies.  Thus  Kotzebue  ended 
the  play.  Sheridan  added  thrills  by  shortening 


€Jjc  SDtamatic  €ran£lationg       225 

this  scene  and  annexing  a  combat  between  Alonzo 
and  Pizarro,  who  suddenly  rushes  in  and  is  slain, 
thanks  to  the  intervention  of  Elvira.  Dunlap 
wisely  omitted  Sheridan's  last  scene,  and  restored 
the  author's  closing  lines,  which  he  designated 
as  "sublime."  The  New  York  version  imitated 
Sheridan  in  placing  on  the  stage  instead  of  behind 
the  scenes  the  spectacular  flight  with  the  child,  in 
eliminating  much  of  Kotzebue's  superfluous  wordi 
ness,  and  in  amplifying  the  sentimental  passages. 
The  "Monthly  Magazine,"  in  reviewing  Dun- 
lap's  "Pizarro,"  made  this  comment : 

"We  have  not,  in  the  present  instance,  any 
reason  to  detract  from  the  praise  we  have  before 
bestowed  on  this  gentleman  as  an  able  and  judi 
cious  translator.  His  views  being  directed  to  the 
stage,  he  has  been  particularly  careful  to  adapt 
his  play  for  a  popular  exhibition.  He  has  cut  out 
many  passages  that  render  the  dialogue  heavy  and 
tiresome,  or  which  seemed  liable  to  weaken  the 
dramatic  effect  of  the  scenes."  He  is  commended 
for  "adhering  to  his  author  in  the  conclusion  of 
the  play,  which  is  greatly  weakened  by  the  change 
introduced  in  that  of  Mr.  Sheridan."34 

Judging  from  the  success  of  the  last  two  dramas, 
the  New  York  playgoers  were  as  enthusiastic  over 
the  German  wonder  as  ever.  The  folk  behind  the 
footlights,  however,  were  tiring  of  the  incessant 
Kotzebue.  In  the  words  of  the  harassed  manager, 

s*  Vol.  Ill,  p.  454- 


226  JDilliam  SDunlap 

''those  plays  which  attracted  the  public,  and  gave 
bread  to  some  and  means  of  destructive  indulgence 
to  others,  were  stigmatized  by  the  actors  as  Dutch 
stuff,  and  by  other  epithets  equally  character 
istic."35 

The  next  two  or  three  dramas  failed  to  receive 
the  support  accorded  to  their  predecessors— per 
haps  an  indication  that  the  public  was  beginning 
to  agree  with  the  actors.  On  April  21,  1800,  "The 
Corsicans"  made  its  bow  in  a  version  of  dubious 
origin.  McKee  and  Wegelin  have  called  it  Dun- 
lap's,  but  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the  "American 
Theatre,"  and  Ireland  does  not  suggest  a  trans 
lator.  The  drama  was  not  acted  in  England,  but 
an  anonymous  rendering  was  printed  at  London  in 
1799,  which  Dunlap  may  have  employed,  with 
alterations,  on  the  stage  of  the  Park  Theatre. 

Two  days  after  "The  Corsicans,"  "The  Stran 
ger's  Birthday,"  a  sequel  to  "The  Stranger,"  was 
performed.  It  was  rendered  from  "Die  Edle 
Luge,"  already  translated  in  England  by  Maria 
Geisweiler  as  "The  Noble  Lie."  Again  Kotzebue 
presented  the  Stranger — now  called  Baron  Mei- 
nau — and  Eulalia.  She  still  suffers  remorse  for 
her  early  sin,  and  feels  herself  unworthy  of  her 
husband.  To  comfort  her,  he  deceives  her  into 
believing  that  he  has  seduced  the  servant  girl.  In 
advertently  learning  the  truth,  she  is  deeply 
touched  by  his  nobility,  and  presumably  banishes 

35  "American  Theatre,"  p.  276. 


227 

her  self-contempt.     Dunlap's  version  of  this  in 
excusable  play  was  never  printed. 

That  Kotzebue  was  no  longer  swallowed  whole 
was  more  than  hinted  in  a  comment  in  the  "Com 
mercial  Advertiser"  of  May  19,  1800 : 

"Our  stage  has  been  so  inundated  of  late,  I  had 
almost  said  disgraced,  with  the  wretched  pro 
ductions  of  the  Holcrofts,  the  Reynoldses,  the 
Mortons,  the  Kotzebues  (the  exception  of  some 
few  plays)  and  a  tribe  of  other  such  writers,  that 
it  is  high  time  to  make  a  stand  against  a  torrent 
which  threatens  to  vitiate  not  only  taste  but 
morals." 

The  last  new  German  drama  of  the  season  was 
"The  Happy  Family,"  rendered  from  "Die  Sil- 
berne  Hochzeit."  McKee  has  attributed  this  title 
to  the  New  York  manager  in  spite  of  his  definite 
statement  that  it  was  "an  English  version"  which 
he  staged.36  In  the  Society  Library,  among  a 
number  of  plays  signed  by  Dunlap,  there  are  two 
copies  of  Thompson's  rendering  of  "The  Happy 
Family"  as  reprinted  by  Charles  Smith.  One  copy 
bears  the  words  "Cut  for  the  part  of  Lewis"  in 
Dunlap's  hand;  the  other,  apparently  the  prompt 
book,  is  greatly  reduced  and  altered,  with  occasional 
textual  changes,  all  in  the  manager's  penman 
ship.  I  think  the  conclusion  is  obvious  that  "The 
Happy  Family"  must  be  omitted  from  our  trans 
lator's  bibliography. 

36  "American  Theatre,"  p.  282. 


228  William  2Dunlaj> 

Early  in  the  fall  season  of  1800  "Fraternal  Dis 
cord,"  another  novelty  from  the  prolific  pen  of 
Kotzebue,  won  the  approbation  of  the  public. 
London  was  already  familiar  with  the  play  through 
Ludger's  unacted  translation,  printed  in  1799  as 
"The  Reconciliation;  or,  The  Birth-Day/'  and 
through  Dibdin's  "Birth-Day,"  acted  in  1799  and 
printed  in  1800. 

"Die  Versohnung"  is  among  the  sanest  efforts 
of  the  Teutonic  dramatist.  It  presents  a  rather 
pleasing  picture  of  middle-class  life.  Two  elderly 
brothers  have  been  engaged  for  fifteen  years  in  a 
lawsuit  with  each  other  over  a  garden.  Philip  is 
an  impoverished  consumptive  with  a  daughter, 
Charlotte.  Franz  is  a  well-to-do  bachelor,  an  ex- 
sea  captain.  Charlotte  and  her  lover,  Philip's 
doctor,  finally  effect  a  reconciliation. 

"Fraternal  Discord"  is  as  completely  his  own 
as  any  of  Dunlap's  Kotzebuean  adaptations.  There 
is  some  evidence  that  he  was  familiar  with 
Ludger's  version,  but  he  borrowed  almost  nothing 
from  it,  and  his  result  differs  materially  from 
this  stiffly  literal  rendering.  Dibdin's  play  is  a 
radical  alteration  to  which  he  was  even  less  in 
debted.  "Fraternal  Discord"  may  then  be  con 
sidered  an  independent  translation,  and  a  very 
skilful  one.  Some  of  the  weaker  scenes  and  more 
unnecessary  dialogue  are  omitted,  and  the  whole 
is  clad  in  a  garb  of  colloquial,  natural  English,  pro 
ducing  a  smoothly  idiomatic  play.  The  "Monthly 
Magazine,"  while  decrying  the  London  versions  as 
stupid  and  mutilated,  said : 


Clje  SDramatic  Cranglation^       229 

"Fraternal  Discord  is  a  translation  from  Kotze- 
bue's  Versbhnung,  oder  Bruder's  Twist,  by  Mr. 
Dunlap,  and  is,  in  our  opinion,  one  of  the  most 
pleasing  pieces  of  that  popular  author.  Its  plot 
is  simple,  yet  sufficiently  abounding  in  incident; 
its  moral  is  excellent,  and  its  dialogue  appropriate 
and  elegant.  .  .  .  The  manager,  in  his  translation, 
appears  to  have  done  justice  to  the  original,  and 
to  have  retained  a  due  regard  for  the  English 
language,  and  the  taste  of  his  audience."37 

Dunlap  himself  considered  it  "perhaps  the  most 
meritorious  of  the  many  translations  and  altera 
tions  which  came  from  his  pen."38 

New  York  received  the  play  most  cordially,  and 
yet  divers  intelligent  people  were  beginning  to 
wonder  whether,  after  all,  Kotzebue  would  rank 
with  the  immortals.  One  writer  thus  expressed  it : 

"No  dramatist  appears  to  have  gained  so  sudden 
and  extensive  a  reputation  as  Kotzebue.  No  other 
has  been  able  to  command  the  united  suffrages  of 
distant  and  different  nations  in  his  favour.  Cen 
turies  have  elapsed  before  an  author  has  been 
much,  or  generally,  known  out  of  his  native 
country.  His  performances  may  be  read  by  the 
few ;  but  to  be  translated  into  different  languages, 
and  usurp  the  place  of  native  productions  on  the 
theatres  of  other  nations,  is  a  destiny  extraordinary 
and  unprecedented.  .  .  .  But  popular  favour  is 
capricious,  and  it  may  be  fairly  questioned  whether 

ST  Vol.  Ill,  p.  380. 

38  "American  Theatre,"  p.  281. 


230  William  SDunlap 

the  fame  of  this  dramatist  rests  on  a  solid  basis, 
or  bids  fair  to  be  as  durable  as  it  is  great ;  whether 
he  is  to  excite  our  wonder,  and  pass  like  a  brilliant 
meteor,  or  to  remain  a  fixed  luminary  in  the  lit 
erary  horizon.  There  is  sometimes  a  fashion  in 
the  prevailing  opinions  of  the  world,  in  the  matters 
of  literature  and  science,  as  well  as  in  dress  and 
equipage;  and  the  present  teutonick  fashion  of 
writing  may  be  as  transient  as  any  other  kind."39 

The  final  German  translation  that  Dunlap  gave 
to  the  New  York  stage  was  "The  Blind  Boy."  It 
was  taken  from  "Das  Epigramm,"  a  sentimental 
comedy  in  which  a  young  doctor,  who  has  in 
curred  the  hostility  of  a  very  self-important 
woman,  makes  amends  by  restoring  the  sight  of 
her  blind  son.  Once  more  the  adapter  worked  in 
dependently,  for  the  play  had  not  been,  and  was 
not  to  be,  translated  in  England.  How  well  he 
performed  his  task  I  cannot  say,  since  the  drama 
seems  never  to  have  been  printed.40  The  fact 
that  "The  Blind  Boy"  was  presented  only  a  very 
few  times  does  not  indicate  that  it  was  inferior  to 
its  predecessors,  but  that  New  York  had  lost  its 
zest  for  Kotzebue. 

39  "Monthly  Magazine,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  453. 

40  Dunlap  said  nothing  as  to  its  publication ;  Wegelin 
states  ("Bibliographical  Checklist  of  the  Plays  and  Mis 
cellaneous  Writings  of  William  Dunlap,"  No.  26)  that  it 
was  printed  in  1808,  but  his  description :  "A  Melo-Drama, 
in  two   acts,  pp.  40,"  corresponds   exactly  with   W.   B. 
Hewetson's  original  "Blind  Boy,"  London,  1808,  and  does 
not  fit  a  translation  of  Kotzebue's  four-act  domestic  com 
edy. 


Clje  SDramatic  3Tran£lation£       2  3 1 

"La  Perouse"  was  Dunlap's  sole  adaptation  not 
to  appear  in  the  theatre.  That  he  translated  the 
piece  we  know  from  its  inclusion  in  his  bibli 
ography  and  in  the  prospectus  of  his  selected 
plays ;  but  when  he  did  so,  or  why  it  was  not  acted, 
there  is  no  way  of  determining.  "La  Perouse" 
was  well  known  in  London.  Renderings  by 
Plumptre  and  Thompson  were  printed  in  1799; 
early  in  1801  J.  Fawcett's  pantomime,  based  on  the 
play,  made  something  of  a  sensation ;  and  later  in 
the  year  Thompson's  version  was  performed.41 
But  not  until  1811  did  this  drama  of  life  on  a 
desolate  island  reach  the  New  York  stage,  and 
then  only  in  the  pantomimic  form. 

Though  Dunlap  was  the  adapter  of  the  majority 
of  Kotzebue's  plays  seen  at  the  Park  Theatre,  yet 
other  translators  were  also  represented,  for  any 
satisfactory  rendering  was  welcome.  During  his 
managership  the  following  translations  from  the 
German  dramatist  were  given : 

First  acted  Translator 

"The  Stranger" Dunlap 

December  10,  1798 

"Lovers'  Vows" Dunlap 

March  II,  1799 

"Count  Benyowski" Dunlap 

April  i,  1799 

"Indians  in  England" Dunlap 

June  14, 1799 

«  Sellier,  pp.  73,  75- 


232  iMiiam  2Dunto£ 

First  acted  Translator 

"Self-immolation" Neuman(?) 

November  29, 1799 

"False  Shame" Dunlap 

December  u,  1799 

"The  Wild  Goose  Chace" Dunlap 

January  24,  1800 

"The  Force  of  Calumny" Dunlap 

February  5, 1800 
"The  Count  of  Burgundy" Uncertain 

March  3, 1800 
"The  Virgin  of  the  Sun" Dunlap 

March  12, 1800 
"Pizarro" Dunlap 

March  26,  1800 
"Sighs;  or,  The  Daughter" Hoare 

April  16, 1800 
"The  Corsicans" Uncertain 

April  21, 1800 
"The  Stranger's  Birthday" Dunlap 

April  23,  1800 

"The  Horse  and  the  Widow" Dibdin 

May  5, 1800 
"Joanna  of  Montfaucon"  ....    Cumberland 

May  28,  1800 
"The  Wise  Man  of  the  East"  .     .     .     .     Inchbald 

May  30, 1800 
"The  Happy  Family" Thompson 

June  2, 1800 

"Fraternal  Discord" Dunlap 

October  24, 1800 
"The  Blind  Boy" Dunlap 

March  30, 1803 


€ftc  SDramatic  €ran£lation£       233 

We  see  that  the  New  York  director  brought 
out  twenty  plays,  against  only  fourteen  on  the 
London  stage  during  the  corresponding  period. 
It  may  occasion  some  surprise  that  Dunlap,  with 
his  high  ambition  for  a  moral  and  elevating  theatre, 
should  thus  have  thrown  the  doors  of  his  establish 
ment  open  to  a  dramatist  who  disregarded  the 
most  fundamental  precepts  of  accepted  morality. 
Perhaps  the  German's  democratic  principles  so 
often  enunciated,  and  his  sentimentalism  so  con 
stantly  flaunted,  blinded  the  eyes  of  the  American 
manager ;  perhaps  Kotzebue's  iconoclasm  appealed 
to  him  in  this  period  of  Godwinian  discipleship ; 
perhaps  he  connived  somewhat  at  the  objection 
able  qualities  in  consideration  of  his  pocket-book. 
It  should  be  said,  however,  that  he  expurgated  as 
much  as  possible,  and  left  some  of  the  most 
prurient  plays  untranslated. 

Though  greatly  admiring  Kotzebue,  Dunlap 
never  idolized  him,  if  his  opinion  was  accurately 
reflected  in  the  works  written  in  after  years. 
Neither  did  he  denounce  him  as  many  did  when 
the  novelty  had  worn  off.  From  the  "History  of 
the  American  Theatre"  I  quote :  "Kotzebue  is  far 
beneath  many  of  the  German  dramatists."  "Kotze 
bue's  great  talent  was  facility  of  invention;  his 
incidents  are  admirable;  his  delineation  of  char 
acter  is  often  fine ;  but  many  of  his  characters  par 
take  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  and  of  his  own 
false  philosophy  and  false  estimate  of  the  founda 
tion  on  which  society  ought  to  rest."42  In  the 

42  pp.  254,  258. 


234 

"Memoirs  of  Cooke,"  after  condemning  the  Eng 
lish  playwrights  who  tried  to  put  down  German 
literature,  and  the  English  translators  who  "suc 
ceeded  in  darkening  its  brightness  by  a  most  thick, 
and  sometimes  impenetrable,  fogginess,"  he  went 
on  to  say:  "As  my  admiration  of  the  German 
dramatists  was  not  founded  on  the  praise  of  the 
English  writers,  so  my  opinion  has  not  been  shaken 
by  their  censure."43 

The  years  of  the  Kotzebue  fever  in  America 
were  1799  and  1800.  The  inoculation  took  place 
in  December,  1798,  and  shortly  the  epidemic  was 
raging.  During  1799,  out  of  approximately  one 
hundred  playing  nights,  at  least  thirty  perform 
ances  of  Kotzebue  were  advertised;  and  in  1800, 
out  of  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  nights, 
he  held  the  boards  at  least  fifty  times.  The  next 
year  started  briskly  with  eight  performances  in 
January,  but  the  German  onslaught  met  a  sudden 
and  final  check,  for  the  remainder  of  1801  saw  but 
a  dozen  or  so  exhibitions  of  Teutonic  drama,  and 
1802  sank  to  four  or  five.  Thereafter  the  "second 
Shakespeare"  was  represented  only  by  an  occa 
sional  performance  of  "The  Stranger,"  "Pizarro," 
"Lovers'  Vows,"  or  "Fraternal  Discord,"  the  four 
plays  which  retained  the  most  persistent  hold  on 
the  New  York  stage.  This  sudden  slump  in  the 
career  of  the  reigning  favorite  was  the  result  of  a 
similar  catastrophe  in  London,  the  fashion-maker 
of  New  York,  and  of  a  perfectly  natural  reaction 
against  the  superficiality  and  falseness  that  had 
just  been  so  eagerly  applauded. 

43  Vol.  I,  pp.  276-7. 


€lje  SDramatic  Crangiatitmg       235 

During  the  fat  years  Kotzebue  held  a  very  prom 
inent  place  in  the  newspapers  and  magazines  of 
the  city.  Each  new  piece  was  heralded  before,  and 
lauded  after,  its  appearance.  Each  performance 
was  reviewed  with  praise  or  blame  for  the  actors 
as  they  reached  or  missed  the  author's  heights. 
The  English  adulation  of  the  great  dramatist  was 
reprinted,  and  biographical  notices  concerning  him 
were  frequently  inserted.  Besides  the  translations 
by  Dunlap  and  Smith,  various  British  versions  of 
his  plays  and  a  few  of  his  novels  and  other  writ 
ings  were  published  in  New  York.  The  German 
invasion,  however,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  ac 
complished  without  some  resistance.  New  York 
did  not  develop  an  opposition  party  as  London  did, 
but  individual-expressions  of  disapproval  were  not 
lacking,  and  these  became  increasingly  prominent 
as  time  went  on. 

It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  New  York  was  the 
only  city  in  the  United  States  in  which  Kotzebue 
was  the  dramatic  hero.  His  plays  reached  Phila 
delphia  shortly  after  their  introduction  to  America, 
and  between  1799  and  1802  they  practically  domi 
nated  the  stage.  "False  Shame,"  "The  Wild  Goose 
Chace,"  and  probably  others  of  Dunlap's  trans 
lating  were  given.44  In  the  Boston  theatre  also 
the  German  playwright  was  well  represented. 
Dunlap  spoke  of  "Count  Benyowski"  and  other 
adaptations  of  his  being  acted  there  in  the  fall  of 

44  C.  F.  Brede,  "German-American  Annals,"  new  series, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  265;  see  same  writer  and  journal,  new  series, 
Vol.  X,  pp.  106-149,  for  a  discussion  of  Kotzebue  on  the 
Philadelphia  stage. 


236  JBflliam  SDunlap 

1799.  "Pizarro,"  admirably  brought  out  in  1800, 
had  a  long  and  successful  run.45  Charleston  wit 
nessed  a  few  of  the  dramas,  including  "Fraternal 
Discord,"  in  i8o3~4,46  and  probably  this  was  not 
their  first  season  at  .that  place.  It  is  to  be  noted 
that  wherever  Kotzebue's  works  were  acted,  Dun- 
lap  was  to  some  extent  the  purveyor  thereof. 

The  effect  of  this  craze  on  American  drama  was 
less  than  one  might  have  expected  from  its  mag 
nitude.  The  plays  known  to  this  country  were 
of  two  main  types:  dramas  centered  about  pro 
tagonists  and  dealing  with  remote  times  and  places, 
such  as  "Pizarro,"  "Benyowski,"  and  "Adelaide 
of  Wulfingen" ;  and  semi-realistic  dramas  of  con 
temporary  life,  like  "The  Stranger,"  "Self-im 
molation,"  and  "Fraternal  Discord."  Perhaps 
fewer  examples  of  the  first  type  could  be  found  in 
our  literature  after  1800  than  before,  and  those 
few  were  as  much  indebted  to  Schiller  as  to  Kotze- 
bue.  The  second  had  been  one  of  the  prevailing 
types  in  America  since  Tyler's  "Contrast"  in  1787. 
Kotzebue's  favorite  motifs,  sentimentality  and 
discovery  of  kinship,  were  much  used  here  years 
before  "The  Stranger's"  advent.  The  Kotzebuean 
species  of  sentimentality  which  arose  from  affect 
ing  pictures  of  family  life,  was  never  much  em 
ployed  by  our  dramatists,  who  preferred  the 
distressed-lover  theme.  The  German  writer's  in 
fluence,  then,  consisted  more  in  confirming  certain 

45  "American  Theatre,"  p.  273 ;  W.  W.  Clapp,  "A  Rec 
ord  of  the  Boston  Stage,"  p.  74. 

46  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  369-70. 


€|)e  Dramatic  Cranglationg       237 

tendencies  already  existent  in  this  country,  than  in 
introducing  any  new  ones. 

As  a  final  word  on  Kotzebue  in  America,  it  may 
be  well  to  point  to  the  fact  that  his  vogue  here  was 
almost  simultaneous  with  his  fame  abroad,  and 
by  completing  the  circle  of  his  triumphs  gave  him 
a  distinction  never  before  achieved  by  a  man  of 
letters.  Whereas  other  writers  had  gained  a 
foreign  standing  gradually,  if  at  all,  and  usually 
not  till  after  their  death,  he  leaped,  almost  at  one 
bound,  into  a  place  of  the  first  literary  importance 
in  all  the  leading  countries  of  the  world.  This  re 
markable  accomplishment  was  the  result  of  his 
unquestioned  theatrical  skill,  his  sentimentality, 
and  his  revolutionary  ideas.  In  this  country  his 
political  philosophy  was  especially  congenial  to  the 
Republican  party,  then  rising  into  power.  But 
perhaps  the  main  cause  of  his  popularity  in  the 
United  States  was  the  furore  which  he  created  on 
the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic. 


Ill 

KOTZEBUE  was  not  the  only  German  dramatist  of 
whom  Dunlap  made  capital.  Having  profited  by 
these  labors,  in  1799  he  turned  his  attention  to 
Schiller.  "The  Robbers"  was  his  only  play  known 
on  our  stage,  and  it  was  not  at  all  well  known.  It 
was  first  given  at  New  York  in  1795  and  not  re 
peated  until  1798,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered.47 

47  See  ante,  p.  162 ;  "Commercial  Advertiser,"  June  7, 
1798. 


238  IMiiam  SDunlap 

Dunlap's  translation  of  "Don  Carlos,"  acted  in 
May,  1799,  did  not  enhance  Schiller's  reputation  in 
the  United  States;  it  was  not  a  sufficient  success 
to  warrant  repetition  or  publication.  This  tre 
mendously  long  drama  on  Spanish  history  seems 
scarcely  adapted  to  the  taste  and  habits  of  an 
American  audience.  Dunlap  curtailed  it,  so  he  has 
told  us,  and  probably  it  lost  much  of  its  original 
force  in  the  process.  Thanks  to  adapter  and 
actors,  the  play  "was  unmercifully  shorn  of  its 
beams."48  "Don  Carlos"  was  not  known  to  the 
English  stage,  but  two  adaptations  were  printed  in 
England  in  1798,  of  which  the  New  York  manager 
may  have  made  some  use. 

Three  years  later  "Fiesco"  was  given  at  the 
Park.  McKee  attributed  the  translation  to  Dun- 
lap,  but  there  is  no  proof  that  this  is  correct.  His 
statement  is  merely :  "On  the  26th  of  March,  1802, 
Schiller's  Fiesco  was  performed  (Cooper  play 
ing  Fiesco)  ;  it  was  coldly  received."49  A  copy  of 
the  drama  in  German  was  included  in  Dunlap's 
library,  and  he  at  one  time  translated  a  portion  of 
it,50  but  we  do  not  know  that  he  ever  finished  it. 
Perhaps  the  New  York  version  was  an  abbrevia 
tion  of  the  rendering  made  in  English  in  1796. 

The  "Monthly  Magazine"  for  December,  1800, 
contained  this  notice:  "We  understand  that  the 
Manager  is  preparing  for  the  stage,  a  German 

48  "American  Theatre,"  p.  262. 

49  Ibid.,  p.  294. 

50  Diary,  Vol.  XV,  pp.  66-7. 


Clje  SDramatic  €ran£lation#       239 

drama,  called  Abaellino,  which,  in  sublimity,  is 
thought  superior  to  the  Robbers,  and  in  its 
denouement  to  exceed  the  Stranger"^  Early 
the  next  year  this  dramatic  gem  appeared.  First 
written  as  a  novel  in  1793  by  Johann  Heinrich 
Daniel  Zschokke,  "Aballino  der  Grosse  Bandit" 
was  soon  dramatized  by  him  and  published  in  1795. 
Within  a  short  time  it  was  to  be  seen  in  most  of 
the  theatres  of  Germany.  Its  international  career 
was  long  and  brilliant.  Translations  were  made 
into  Dutch,  French,  Spanish,  Polish,  Danish,  and 
English,  and  in  various  disguises  it  was  acted  all 
over  Europe.52 

Dunlap  was  the  first  to  turn  "Aballino"  into 
English.  The  earliest  British  versions  were  those 
of  M.  G.  Lewis  and  R.  W.  Elliston,  both  made  in 
1805.  Unfortunately  I  have  failed  to  find  a  copy 
of  the  German  play  (except  a  later  poetic  revision) 
in  this  country ;  hence  I  have  been  unable  to  com 
pare  the  translation  with  the  original.  But  prob 
ably  the  American  adapter  adhered  fairly  closely 
to  the  text,  as  his  custom  was. 

In  the  New  York  edition  the  plot  is  this :  Abael 
lino,  a  bravo,  is  terrorizing  Venice  by  his  assas 
sinations.  Great  efforts  are  made  to  capture  him, 
but  without  success.  Flodoardo,  a  young  Venetian 
in  love  with  Rosamonda,  the  Doge's  niece,  as 
sumes  the  task  of  exterminating  Abaellino.  But 
the  bandit's  outrages  continue,  many  prominent 

"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  456. 

52  J.  P.  Hoskins,  "Publications  of  the  Modern  Lan 
guage  Association,"  Vol.  XX,  p.  283. 


240  JBilliam  SDuntop 

citizens  falling  under  his  dagger.  Finally  at  a 
State  reception,  Abaellino  suddenly  appears,  and 
whisking  off  his  horrible  mask,  reveals  the  hand 
some  Flo  do  ar  do.  Then  he  points  out  the  con 
spirators  for  whose  detection  he  had  assumed  the 
manner  and  disguise  of  a  bravo,  mysteriously  pro 
duces  his  supposed  victims,  and  receives  the  hand 
of  Rosamonda. 

This  wildly  extravagant  affair  met  the  entire  ap 
proval  of  New  York,  as  well  as  of  numerous  other 
American  cities  where  it  was  played. 

One  of  the  least  successful  of  the  German  adap 
tations  was  "Peter  the  Great;  or,  The  Russian 
Mother,"  which  came  out  in  the  fall  of  1802.  It 
was  based  on  "Die  Strelizen,"  written  in  1790  by 
Joseph  Marius  Babo.  The  play  concerns  itself 
with  a  conspiracy  of  the  Strelitz53  against  Peter 
the  Great.  The  plot  is  discovered,  and  the  young 
leader  is  about  to  be  executed,  but  his  mother 
prevails  upon  the  Czar  to  spare  him. 

As  usual,  Dunlap's  version  carefully  followed 
the  outlines  of  the  original,  though  with  judicious 
compression  of  the  dialogue,  and  without  any  at 
tempt  at  literal  translation.  Some  of  the  diffi 
cult  Russian  names  were  simplified— for  instance, 
Prostoserdof  was  changed  to  Orloff— and  one  or 
two  minor  characters  were  expanded,  especially 

53  The  Strelitz  was  a  body  of  troops  which  formed  the 
greater  part  of  the  Russian  army  in  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries.  They  were  brave  in  battle,  but  so 
given  to  mutiny  in  peace  that  Peter  the  Great  abolished 
the  force. 


€ljc  SDramatic  Cranglationg       24 1 

the  indefinitely  foreign  officer,  who  became  at  his 
hands  a  debonair  Frenchman.  In  short,  Dunlap 
altered  "Die  Strelizen"  into  a  somewhat  American 
ized  drama  in  easy  and  flexible  English.  Its  lack 
of  popularity  in  New  York  is  not  surprising,  be 
cause  the  original  has  but  little  theatrical  pos 
sibility. 

The  shortest  of  the  foreign  renderings  is  "The 
Good  Neighbor;  An  Interlude  in  One  Act. 
Altered  from  a  scene  of  Iffland's."  It  centers 
about  a  kindly  old  man  who  serves  as  a  sort  of 
community  mediator  and  peace-maker.  I  have 
been  unable  to  locate  the  play  of  Iffland's  from 
which  the  sketch  was  taken.  "Nachbarschaft"  is 
immediately  suggested  by  the  title,  but  I  find  no 
resemblance  in  subject-matter.  Probably  Dunlap 
took  the  idea  from  a  portion  of  one  of  Iffland's 
dramas,  and  worked  it  up  to  suit  himself. 

Considering  Dunlap's  translations  as  a  whole, 
we  find  much  of  that  dependence  on  the  work  of 
others  which  characterized  his  original  plays.  Not 
more  than  one  third  of  his  adaptations  were  made 
without  the  authority  of  previous  British  versions. 
Much  as  he  deplored  the  partiality  of  America  for 
the  literature  of  Great  Britain,  he  found  it  ex 
pedient  to  follow  that  literature  as  a  standard. 
In  the  case  of  Kotzebue  it  was  his  usual  practice 
to  bring  forward  on  the  New  York  stage  those 
dramas  which  made  the  greatest  sensation  in 
London,  though  occasionally  he  anticipated  the 


242  JMIiam 

English  premiere.  This  adherence  to  foreign 
precedent,  however,  was  not  solely  the  result  of 
mental  dependence  on  Dunlap's  part ;  it  was  rather 
the  most  satisfactory  solution  of  a  very  difficult 
problem.  Given  a  theatre  rushing  toward  bank 
ruptcy  and  an  audience  prejudiced  in  favor  of  the 
London  product,  self-preservation  required  that 
London  be  taken  as  the  model.  If  often  Dunlap's 
dependence  was  not  confined  to  the  choice  of  the 
play,  but  involved  also  textual  borrowing,  it  should 
be  attributed  to  imperative  haste  and  not  to  in 
capacity.  When  he  set  himself  to  the  task  he  could 
make  an  independent  translation  equal  to  any  of 
his  English  rivals,  as  "The  Wild  Goose  Chace" 
and  "Fraternal  Discord"  clearly  show. 

Dunlap's  merits  as  a  translator  were  of  no  mean 
order.  He  always  held  the  author's  intention  in 
respect,  yet  he  almost  never  fell  into  the  error  of 
rendering  literally.  By  reproducing  the  ideas  in 
facile,  conversational  English,  by  cutting  redun 
dancies,  and  by  amplifying  undeveloped  spots,— in 
a  word,  by  applying  his  knowledge  of  stage  re 
quirements  to  another  writer's  material,  he  often 
constructed  a  play  equaling  or  surpassing  the 
original. 

The  service  of  William  Dunlap  to  American 
literature  through  his  translations  was  intangible, 
but  real  none  the  less.  Before  1799  America  had 
but  the  barest  acquaintance  with  the  drama  of  the 
Continent.  England  held  the  boards  to  the  ex 
clusion  of  other  nations.  For  the  dramatic  lit 
erature  of  France  and  Germany  Dunlap  made  a 


€f)e  2Dramatit  €ran£lation£       243 

large  place  on  the  stage  of  New  York,  and  called 
it  strongly  to  the  attention  of  other  cities  where 
his  adaptations  were  acted  and  his  example  im 
itated.  Thus  he  helped  give  the  United  States  a 
more  cosmopolitan  view  of  contemporary  culture. 
Though  the  plays  which  he  exploited  were  of  little 
permanence,  yet  they  aided  in  establishing  literary 
intercourse  between  America  and  Europe.  Two 
immediate  results  of  this  heightened  interest  in 
foreign  drama  were  the  greatly  increased  popu 
larity  of  Schiller  in  this  country  after  1800,  and 
the  work  of  John  Howard  Payne  as  a  translator  of 
French  plays. 

If  Dunlap  played  some  part  in  lessening  the 
provincialism  of  the  United  States  in  its  youth, 
and  in  broadening  its  outlook  on  the  world  of 
letters,  surely  he  deserves  our  respect  and  gratitude 
as  a  contributor  to  our  literary  development. 


CHAPTER   V 
THE  NON-DRAMATIC  WRITINGS 

NOBODY  reads  Dunlap's  plays  to-day,  and 
nobody  visits  an  art  museum  to  see  his 
pictures.  These  products  belonged  to  the  age 
which  gave  them  being,  and  with  it  they  passed 
away.  But  a  third  phase  of  his  work  still  retains 
an  importance  that  it  will  not  soon  lose.  It  is  as  an 
investigator  and  recorder  of  facts  that  he  possesses 
a  present-day  value.  He  knew  some  interesting 
people  of  his  generation ;  he  was  a  leader  in  various 
activities ;  he  was  a  close  observer  of  all  that  went 
on  about  him,  as  well  as  a  careful  student  of  that 
which  had  preceded.  Of  the  things  he  knew  best, 
he  wrote,  and  we  are  yet  indebted  to  him  for  hav 
ing  done  so. 


THE  "Memoirs  of  the  Life  of  George  Frederick 
Cooke"  had  its  place  in  the  development  of  Ameri 
can  biography.  In  order  to  understand  its  sig 
nificance,  we  must  look  at  a  few  early  examples 
of  this  department  of  our  literature.  Among  the 
first  attempts  at  memoir  writing  was  John  Nor 
ton's  "Life  and  Death  of  that  deservedly  famous 
man  of  God,  Mr.  John  Cotton,"  published  in  1658. 
As  the  title  suggests,  it  was  more  sermon  than 
biography ;  the  narrative  of  John  Cotton's  life  was 
244 


Clje  iJJotMSDramatit  i©riting£      245 

used  as  a  vehicle  for  a  great  deal  of  moralizing. 
Nothing  like  a  well-rounded  picture  of  the  man 
was  given,  for  the  emphasis  was  wholly  on  the 
religious  aspects.  The  formula  employed  by  John 
Norton  prevailed  for  over  a  century.  Cotton 
Mather,  Samuel  Mather,  Ebenezer  Turrell,  and 
other  biographers  wrote  in  the  laudatory,  didactic, 
and  one-sided  manner  of  their  forerunner. 

By  1800  the  method  was  beginning  to  undergo  a 
change.  One  of  the  first  memoirs  of  the  nine 
teenth  century  was  Weems's"Life  of  Washington." 
To  be  sure,  Weems  exalted  his  hero  to  the  clouds, 
and  never  lost  an  opportunity  to  point  a  moral, 
even  as  his  predecessors  had  done;  but  in  laying 
greater  stress  on  private  life  and  general  affairs,  he 
took  a  forward  step.  Another  tendency,  almost 
entirely  absent  previously,  is  well  illustrated  in 
Cheetham's  "Life  of  Thomas  Paine"  (1809)— a 
tendency  to  disregard  the  doctrine  of  "de  mortuis 
nil  nisi  bonum."  Indeed,  Cheetham's  book  is  a 
scathing  denunciation  of  Paine's  character  and 
deeds. 

The  "Memoirs  of  Cooke"  was  a  joint  product  of 
the  older  and  newer  methods.  Like  the  pious 
biographies  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  aimed  to 
serve  the  cause  of  morality;  but,  decidedly  unlike 
them,  it  did  so,  not  by  detailing  the  blameless 
career  of  a  devout  clergyman,  but  by  frankly  re 
vealing  the  errors  of  a  dissipated  actor.  If  the 
moral  purpose  was  inherited  from  the  past,  the 
subject-matter  was  of  the  newer  and  less  idolatrous 
school,  for  we  hear  less  praise  of  Cooke's  majestic 


246  IBiHiam  SDunlap 

acting  than  condemnation  of  his  inebriety.  This 
means  that  the  picture  is  not  so  one-sided  as  in  the 
earlier  biographies.  In  them  we  saw  only  the 
preacher  or  the  ideal  Christian ;  in  this  we  see  the 
actor  and  the  man,  the  genius  and  the  brute.  The 
Philadelphia  "Port  Folio"  spoke  truly  when  it  said 
of  Dunlap:  "He  deserves  the  thanks  of  his 
countrymen  for  making  so  bold  and  intrepid  a 
stand  in  favour  of  legitimate  biography."1 

In  writing  the  "Memoirs,"  Dunlap  relied  for  his 
information  on  Cooke's  rather  fragmentary  diaries, 
and  on  his  own  acquaintance  with  him.  From 
these  sources  he  strung  out  an  Soopage  narrative, 
which  probably  was  not  considered  too  long  in 
that  leisurely,  two-volume  age.  The  first  volume 
and  about  a  third  of  the  second  are  taken  up  with 
the  player's  English  career ;  the  remainder  presents 
a  detailed  review  of  his  two  years  in  America.  We 
are  given  some  idea  of  that  indescribable  thing,  a 
great  actor's  mode  of  acting.  We  are  introduced 
to  his  manner  of  life  and  his  opinions  on  various 
subjects.  We  are  offered  lengthy  extracts  from 
his  journals.  We  are  entertained  with  number 
less  anecdotes.  Entirely  too  much  space  is  de 
voted  to  gossip  and  scandal.  The  reader  is  not 
particularly  edified  by  an  account  of  each  of  the 
player's  debauches.  Indeed,  Dunlap's  zeal  for 
temperance  may  have  led  him  to  exaggerate 
Cooke's  alcoholic  excesses,  or  to  give  them  a 
semblance  of  greater  frequency  than  was  con 
sistent  with  the  truth.  Some  of  Cooke's  associates, 

1  Third  series,  Vol.  I,  p.  554- 


ic  IBritingg      247 

especially  W.  B.  Wood  and  J.  W.  Francis,  have 
testified  that  the  biographer  presented  an  unjust 
picture  of  the  actor.2  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  he 
did  not  omit  some  of  the  gossipy  padding,  and 
substitute  a  discussion  of  the  conditions  in  the 
American  theatre  at  this  period. 

The  "Memoirs  of  Cooke"  is  not  Dunlap's  most 
excellent  production.  It  is,  however,  interesting 
reading,  it  is  our  main  source  of  information  about 
a  distinguished  player,  and  it  is  something  of  a 
landmark  in  the  development  of  impartial  bi 
ography. 

One  of  the  most  pleasant  friendships  among 
early  American  men  of  letters  was  that  of  Charles 
Brockden  Brown  and  William  Dunlap,  and  it  is 
fitting  that  the  latter  should  have  written  our 
standard  biography  of  the  novelist.  It  is,  to  be 
sure,  a  very  imperfect  performance,  but  for  this 
the  author  was  not  altogether  to  blame.  Before 
the  task  was  put  into  his  hands,  it  had  been  under 
taken  by  Paul  Allen  of  Baltimore,  who  had  gone 
so  far  as  to  print  copious  selections  from  Brown's 
rarer  writings  for  inclusion  in  Volume  I.3  When 
the  commission  was  given  to  Dunlap,  it  was  agreed 
that  these  selections  should  stand.  Much  as  he 
resented  this  encumbrance  which  occupied  about 
seven-eighths  of  the  volume,  he  was  under  the  ne 
cessity  of  retaining  it,  and  of  inserting  his  material 

2  Wood,  "Personal  Recollections  of  the  Stage,"  Phila 
delphia,  1855,  p.  163 ;  Francis,  "Old  New  York,"  p.  205. 

3  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  272. 


248  l&tUiam  2DunIap 

wherever  convenient  openings  could  be  found.  Of 
the  arrangement  of  the  second  volume  he  had  com 
plete  control,  and  its  construction  is  much  superior 
to  the  first.  Ninety  continuous  pages  are  given  to 
biography  and  criticism;  then  follow  about  thirty 
pages  of  letters,  and  about  three  hundred  and  fifty 
pages  of  extracts  and  fragments.  The  work  had 
been  designed  both  as  a  memoir  and  as  a  repository 
for  some  of  Brown's  manuscripts  and  rare  printed 
writings ;  hence  a  disproportion  between  selections 
and  biography  for  which  Dunlap  was  not  re 
sponsible.  But  the  modern  reader  is  disposed  to 
desire  an  exchange  of  most  of  the  extracts  for 
more  letters  and  passages  from  the  journal.  The 
English  edition  of  1822  in  some  measure  improved 
the  work  by  reducing  the  whole  to  one  volume  of 
three  hundred  and  thirty-seven  pages  with  a  con 
tinuous  text,  and  an  appendix  containing  the  more 
important  selections  in  the  American  edition. 

The  biographical  portion,  which  is  not  over  one 
hundred  and  thirty-five  pages  long,  begins  with  an 
account,  probably  somewhat  idealized,  of  Brown's 
precocious  youth.  His  difficulty  in  choosing  a  pro 
fession,  his  attempts  at  law  study,  and  his  refusal 
to  enter  the  practice  are  discussed.  Then  comes 
his  New  York  residence,  with  its  many  friend 
ships  and  literary  activities.  After  his  return  to 
Philadelphia  in  1801,  the  narrative  proceeds 
rapidly  to  his  death  in  1810,  and  ends  with  a  grace 
ful  eulogy.  Brown's  habits  of  mind  and  methods 
of  literary  work  are  discussed,  and  there  is  con 
siderable  judicious  criticism  of  the  novels.  It  is 


Charles  Brockden  Brown 

From  a  miniature  by  William  Dunlap,  about  1  Sob 


ic  IDritingg      249 

stated  at  the  outset  that  the  subject's  chief  claim 
to  interest  is  as  a  pioneer,  that  planlessness  and  in 
completeness  mark  his  writings,  and  that  his  talent, 
though  great,  was  undeveloped.  No  attempt  is 
made  to  give  undue  credit,  yet  the  treatment  is 
kindly  and  admiring.  For  Brown's  personality 
the  author  has  hearty  praise,  but  never  extravagant 
adulation. 

Like  the  "Memoirs  of  Cooke,"  the  "Life  of 
Brown"  shows  the  influence  of  the  newer  bio 
graphical  method.  While  the  main  stress  is  prop 
erly  on  the  literary  side,  yet  other  interests  and  ac 
tivities  are  not  neglected.  An  effort  is  also  made 
to  judge  the  novelist's  merits  impartially,  and  to 
avoid  indiscriminate  laudation. 

There  is  room  for  a  new  biography  of  Charles 
Brockden  Brown,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  some 
one  may  soon  undertake  it,  so  that  we  may  have  a 
completer  record  of  his  life,  especially  after  1800, 
than  we  at  present  possess.  Meanwhile  American 
literature  is  under  obligation  to  Dunlap  for  nearly 
all  that  is  known  about  our  first  professional  man 
of  letters.4 

4  When  Herring  and  Longacre  were  projecting  the 
"National  Portrait  Gallery,"  Dunlap  was  asked  to  furnish 
a  biography  of  Brown.  For  this  purpose  he  condensed 
his  book  to  a  very  creditable  sketch,  and  added  a  little 
new  material  of  some  importance.  It  was  published  in 
Volume  III  in  1836,  accompanied  by  a  portrait  of  the 
novelist,  engraved  from  Dunlap's  miniature  painted  in 
1806. 


2  50  Jt&iHiom  SDunlap 


ii 

THE  spectacular  drama  of  the  rise  and  fall  of 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  was  approaching  its  denoue 
ment  in  1814.  Dunlap,  like  most  of  his  country 
men,  rejoiced  when  the  tide  of  victory  turned 
against  the  dictator  of  Europe,  and  in  two  his 
torical  sketches  he  recounted  the  events  which  led 
to  the  Emperor's  overthrow. 

In  1812  Francis  L.  Clarke  published  at  London 
a  life  of  Wellington,  who  was  then  conducting  the 
campaign  in  the  Spanish  Peninsula.  Clarke's  ac 
count  extended  to  the  siege  of  Burgos  in  the  fall 
of  1812.  The  work  was  printed  in  New  York  in 
1814  with  a  54-page  supplement  by  Dunlap,  con 
tinuing  the  story  of  Wellington's  triumphs  from 
the  siege  of  Burgos  to  the  capitulation  of  Bordeaux 
in  the  spring  of  1814.  His  statements  were  based 
mainly  on  the  official  despatches  of  Wellington  and 
his  generals,  and  of  course  showed  the  Duke  in  a 
favorable  light,  but  without  the  flattery  that  Clarke 
lavished  on  him. 

In  the  "Life  of  Wellington"  Dunlap  prophesied 
the  early  downfall  of  the  French  tyrant.  In  a 
second  sketch  he  dealt  with  the  fulfilment  of  this 
prophecy.  His  "Narrative  of  the  Events  which 
followed  Bonaparte's  Campaign  in  Russia  to  the 
Period  of  his  Dethronement"  was  published  at 
Hartford  in  1814  both  separately  and  as  a  sup 
plement  to  an  edition  of  Sir  Robert  Ker  Porter's 


2  5 1 

"Narrative  of  the  Campaign  in  Russia,  During  the 
Year  1812,"  first  issued  at  London  in  1813.  Dun- 
lap's  account,  seventy-five  pages  in  length,  begins 
after  the  flight  from  Russia,  and  embraces  the 
battle  of  Leipzig,  the  capture  of  Paris,  the  banish 
ment  to  Elba,  and  the  establishment  of  the  new 
French  government.  In  discussing  the  reorganiza 
tion  of  France,  the  historian  showed  himself  a 
thorough  American  by  deprecating  the  substitution 
of  one  unqualified  monarchy  for  another  when  the 
time  was  ripe  for  a  republic. 

These  two  fragments  are  reasonably  accurate, 
but  their  manner  of  procedure  is  open  to  criticism. 
Each  is  a  solid  mass  of  detailed  military  opera 
tions,  related  in  a  juiceless  and  pedestrian  fashion, 
and  almost  unrelieved  by  considerations  of  larger 
significance  than  the  number  of  attacks  on  a  given 
position  or  the  size  of  the  armies  involved. 

Long  years  of  participation  in  the  dramatic 
affairs  of  the  United  States  gave  Dunlap  a  know 
ledge  of  their  history  which  few  of  his  contempo 
raries  possessed,  and  it  is  especially  fortunate  that 
he  had  the  inclination  as  well  as  the  ability  to 
chronicle  the  progress  of  those  affairs.5  In  the 
preface  to  the  "American  Theatre"  he  said,  quoting 
Colley  Gibber,  whose  "Apology"  served  as  a  sort  of 
model  for  him :  "If  I  have  any  particular  qualifica- 

5  Dunlap  was  not  the  first  to  make  a  phase  of  American 
culture  the  subject  of  a  history.  At  least  one  work  of 
this  nature  had  already  appeared,  namely,  Isaiah  Thomas's 
"History  of  Printing  in  America,"  pubfished  in  1810. 


252  ID  ill  mm  SDunlap 

tion  for  the  task  more  than  another,  it  is  that  I 
am  perhaps  the  only  person  living  (however  un 
worthy)  from  whom  the  same  materials  can  be 
collected." 

For  his  facts  he  relied  to  some  extent  on  the 
assistance  of  others:  the  investigations  of  his 
friends;  the  reminiscences  of  Lewis  Hallam,  who 
had  come  to  this  country  as  a  boy  in  1752,  and  of 
W.  B.  Wood  of  Philadelphia;  and  contributions 
by  John  Dunlap  on  Kotzebue  and  Schiller.  But 
chiefly  he  relied  on  his  own  researches  and  on  his 
journals  and  recollections  covering  a  period  of 
twenty  or  twenty-five  years.  The  chronicle  ex 
tends  from  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century  to 
the  coming  of  Cooke  in  1810.  It  is  interspersed 
with  sketches  of  the  leading  actors  and  play 
wrights,  anecdotes  of  the  stage,  and  opinions  on 
various  problems  connected  with  the  drama. 

The  book  has  many  faults,  not  the  least  being 
occasional  inaccuracy  of  statements.  At  the  start 
the  writer  made  the  mistake  of  ascribing  the 
origin  of  American  histrionic  art  to  the  Hallam 
Company  in  1752,  whereas  subsequent  investiga 
tion  has  found  that  the  profession  was  followed 
half  a  century  before.  Because  his  researches  had 
not  been  carried  back  of  this  date,  he  was  in  error 
concerning  the  beginnings  in  nearly  all  the  towns 
where  the  drama  gained  an  early  foothold.  And 
in  dealing  with  later  events  he  sometimes  stumbled 
over  a  date,  or  otherwise  gave  misinformation. 

Another  serious  fault, — the  book  is  not  free 
from  partiality.  Certain  actors  and  playwrights 


253 

are  treated  with  more  severity  than  they  deserve, 
because  of  Dunlap's  personal  dislike.  Moreover, 
the  author  was  strongly  prejudiced  in  favor  of 
himself.  He  gave  his  plays  and  experiences  much 
more  prominence  than  their  importance  would 
warrant.  Indeed,  after  the  first  seventy-five  pages 
the  work  becomes  more  nearly  an  autobiography 
than  a  well-balanced  history  of  the  stage.  While 
other  theatres  are  from  time  to  time  considered, 
the  overwhelming  emphasis  is  on  the  New  York 
theatre  during  the  period  of  Dunlap's  dramatic 
and  managerial  activity.  We  hear  more  about 
the  "author  of  the  Father  of  an  only  Child"  than 
of  all  other  playwrights  combined,  and  we  en 
counter  two  chapters  of  autobiography  arbitrarily 
dragged  in. 

A  third  fault  is  the  lack  of  a  clear  outline  of  the 
progress  of  our  drama  and  the  theatre.  We  are 
given  many  details  in  chronological  order,  but  a 
bird's-eye  view  is  hardly  to  be  obtained. 

If  the  "American  Theatre"  has  numerous  short 
comings,  it  has  more  excellences.  In  general,  after 
the  first  dozen  pages  the  information  is  reliable. 
Many  of  the  facts  recorded  are  to  be  met  with 
nowhere  else,  because  they  came  out  of  the  writer's 
own  experience,  and  are  invaluable  for  the  light 
they  throw  on  our  early  stage  conditions  and 
personages. 

Regarded  as  an  autobiography,  the  work  has 
distinct  merit.  Dunlap  had  the  good  sense  to  say 
the  most  about  the  things  he  knew  best.  Thus,  we 
get  interesting  glimpses  behind  the  scenes,  ac- 


254  William  SDunlap 

counts  of  the  quarrels,  trials,  and  successes  of 
actors  and  managers,  pictures  of  the  audiences, 
and  descriptions  of  the  players  based  on  close  ac 
quaintance,  all  of  which  make  it  one  of  the  most 
human  books  ever  written  on  the  theatre.  In  style 
it  is  more  pleasing  than  any  of  the  later  treatises  on 
the  subject.  Personalities,  anecdotes,  and  digres 
sions  serve  to  enliven  a  theme  which  in  the  hands 
of  Ireland  and  Seilhamer  is  often  dreary  reading. 
Dunlap's  opinions  form  no  inconsiderable  part 
of  the  volume.  His  ideals  are  frankly  and  forcibly 
stated.  Realizing  the  influence  of  the  theatre,  he 
stood  unhesitatingly  for  a  moral  stage,  a  stage  on 
which  virtue  should  be  both  practised  and  taught. 
He  stood  for  a  stage  which  should  appeal  only  to 
the  higher  intelligence,  with  none  of  the  cheap  at 
traction  of  acrobatics,  dances,  and  monsters  which 
the  audiences  of  his  day  demanded.  He  stood  for 
a  theatre  that  should  not  be  the  gathering  place 
and  parade-ground  for  the  vicious  and  debased 
elements  of  the  community.  As  the  surest  means 
to  these  ends  he  advocated — and  in  this  he  was 
ahead  of  his  countrymen — a  theatre  owned  and 
directed  by  the  government,  like  those  of  France 
and  Germany,  a  theatre  in  which  money-making 
and  reputation-making  should  be  subordinated  to 
the  mental  and  moral  improvement  of  the  people. 
Having  failed  as  a  manager  to  bring  his  ideals  to 
a  realization  because  of  his  dependence  on  the 
public  for  his  livelihood,  Dunlap  became  convinced 
that  only  that  theatre  which  was  in  a  position  to 
fashion  popular  taste,  instead  of  following  it, 


255 

could  effect  a  permanent  reform.  Again  and 
again  he  reiterated  this  idea.  Almost  the  last 
words  of  the  book  are: 

"One  great  theatre  in  each  great  city  of  the 
Union,  supported  and  guided  by  the  state,  would 
remedy  every  evil  attendant  on  our  present  play 
house  system. 

"We  should  have  no  managers  seeking  only  to 
fill  the  treasury  or  pay  hungry  creditors— no  stars 
rendering  all  attraction  but  that  of  novelty  un 
profitable — no  benefit  plays  tempting  actors  to 
exceed  their  stated  and  certain  income,  and  to 
descend  to  practices,  for  the  purpose  of  gaining 
patrons,  which  tend  to  disgrace  their  profession, 
and  sometimes  end  in  destroying  themselves — no 
display  of  impudent  vice  before  the  stage,  or  of 
immoral  precept  upon  it.  A  theatre,  so  supported 
and  conducted,  must  exhibit  plays  no  less  attractive 
for  the  purpose  of  mere  amusement,  and  no  less 
popular,  but  like  the  novels  of  Walter  Scott,  and 
James  Fennimore  Cooper,  incomparably  more  fas 
cinating  as  well  as  instructive,  than  much  of  the 
trash  of  the  stage  or  the  circulating  library  of 
former  days."6 

Subsequent  writers  on  the  American  theatre 
have  drawn  copiously  from  Dunlap  as  the  ultimate 
authority  on  many  points,  and  all  have  treated  him 
with  respect  except  George  O.  Seilhamer.  By  Mr. 
Seilhamer  he  was  arraigned  for  all  the  faults  he 
possessed  and  many  that  he  did  not,  and  was  found 

6  "American  Theatre,"  pp.  404-5. 


256  f&tfltam  SPunlaj* 

guilty  of  woeful  incapacity  for  his  task.  Seilhamer 
was  a  Philadelphia!!,  and  one  of  his  indictments 
against  Dunlap  was  that  he  did  not  give  sufficient 
attention  to  Philadelphia's  laurels.  Finding  the 
New  Yorker  in  error  in  some  of  his  early  state 
ments,  he  eagerly  seized  the  opportunity  of  con 
demning  him  in  toto.  "Dunlap  was  so  uniformly 
inaccurate  that  it  is  impossible  to  accept  anything 
he  asserts  as  a  fact."  "Dunlap  stands  pre-eminent 
as  a  historical  blunderer."  "There  probably  never 
was  a  book  written  to  throw  light  upon  a  subject 
that  succeeded  so  completely  [as  the  'American 
Theatre']  in  confusing  it."7  Such  is  the  type  of 
Seilhamer's  criticism.  After  castigating  Dunlap's 
inaccuracy  in  this  sledge-hammer  fashion,  he  fre 
quently  borrowed  extensively  from  the  "blun 
derer" — without  giving  credit;  or,  worse  yet,  fell 
into  as  serious  error  as  he  had  accused  his  prede 
cessor  of.  Seilhamer's  "History  of  the  American 
Theatre"  is  a  monument  of  painstaking  investi 
gation,  and  its  value  is  great,  but  the  absurdly 
jealous  and  unscholarly  treatment  of  Dunlap  is  an 
unmistakable  blot. 

Fortunately  no  one  now  attaches  much  weight 
to  Seilhamer's  abuse,  which,  by  the  way,  was 
showered  on  all  who  had  dared  to  write  on  his  sub 
ject.  It  is  generally  recognized  that  Dunlap  made 
mistakes,  partly  through  oversight,  partly  through 
the  inaccessibility  of  material  that  has*  since  been 
obtainable.  But  present-day  students  of  American 
drama  honor  him  not  only  as  a  pioneer  in  the  field 

7  Seilhamer,  Vol.  I,  pp.  198,  286;  Vol.  II,  p.  274. 


Clje  HJon^SDramatic  l©ritingg      257 

of  theatrical  chronicling,  but  as  the  preserver  of 
much  information  without  which  our  knowledge 
of  the  subject  would  be  distinctly  impoverished.8 

William  Dunlap  served  the  cause  of  American 
art  more  effectively  with  his  pen  than  his  brush; 
the  "History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Arts 
of  Design  in  the  United  States"  is  more  valuable 
than  all  his  canvases. 

The  plan  of  the  work  is  biographical  and  strictly 
chronological ;  each  artist  is  introduced  at  the  point 
when  his  professional  career  began.  At  the  proper 
place  we  come  upon  a  sixty-nine-page  sketch  of 
William  Dunlap,  a  garrulous  but  interesting  ac 
count  of  his  life,  with  special  stress  on  his  artistic 
activities.  It  was  included  as  a  warning  against 
neglecting  opportunities,  and  as  evidence  that  he 
was  incapable  of  attaining  high  rank  as  a  painter. 
Interspersed  through  the  biographies  are  brief  dis 
quisitions  on  the  art  academies  of  America,  and  on 
the  origin  and  history  of  various  branches  of  art, 
together  with  explanations  of  the  mechanical  pro 
cesses  they  involve. 

The  term  "art"  is  stretched  to  the  breaking  point ; 
not  only  painters,  sculptors,  and  architects,  but 
even  sign-painters,  bank-note  engravers,  and  die- 
sinkers  are  assembled  within  these  hospitable 
pages.  Or  if  a  man,  engaged  in  other  pursuits, 

s  The  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  X,  p.  266,  said  that 
Dunlap  had  in  preparation  in  1833  a  continuation  of  the 
stage  history  to  the  appearance  of  Edwin  Forrest  about 
1826. 


258  IDttluim  SDunla  j» 

chanced  to  paint  a  little,  he  is  to  be  found  here 
with  a  word  on  his  paintings  and  a  careful  discus 
sion  of  his  non-artistic  labors.  Thus  Robert  Ful 
ton,  who  made  a  few  poor  portraits,  is  given  eleven 
pages,  devoted  to  his  steamboat  and  other  inven 
tions.  The  boundaries  of  the  United  States  are 
strained  scarcely  less.  English  and  French  artists, 
who  may  have  visited  this  country,  are  treated  as 
fully  as  the  natives.  For  instance,  Benjamin 
West's  son,  Raphael,  who  spent  two  years  in 
America  without  doing  any  professional  work,  is 
given  five  pages. 

In  dealing  with  deceased  artists,  the  author  went 
to  the  most  available  sources  for  his  facts,  but  in 
the  case  of  a  living  man  his  modus  operandi  was 
to  request  a  biographical  account  directly  from 
him  or  from  some  close  acquaintance.  Frequently 
the  letters,  with  appropriate  comments,  were  pub 
lished  verbatim.  In  a  manner,  then,  Dunlap's 
function  was  to  act  as  editor  for  a  large  body 
of  contributors,  among  whom  were  Irving  and 
Cooper.  This  method  resulted  in  a  series  of  biog 
raphies  and  autobiographies,  which  have  a  first 
hand  veracity  and  a  vitality  that  give  them  a 
peculiar  worth. 

In  the  present  work  Dunlap  began  at  the  begin 
ning.  Later  investigation  has  unearthed  no  Amer 
ican  artist,  worthy  of  the  name,  prior  to  John 
Watson,  with  whose  landing  at  Perth  Amboy  in 
1715  the  chronicle  opens.  And  none  of  Watson's 
successors  down  to  1834  was  overlooked.  No 
practitioner  of  any  of  the  arts  of  design  was  too 


€l)c  i^on^SDramatic  iErithigg      259 

insignificant  to  be  mentioned.  If  his  merits  did 
not  warrant  a  place  in  the  text,  his  name  and  dates 
were  sure  to  appear  in  the  appendix,  reserved  for 
the  least  important.  The  work  thus  has  a  unique 
value,  since  it  preserves  so  complete  a  record  of 
our  early  artists,  whose  very  names  in  some  in 
stances  would  otherwise  be  forgotten. 

The  hero  of  the  history  is  Benjamin  West.  His 
life,  character,  and  work  are  admiringly,  almost 
reverently,  presented,  yet  with  an  accuracy  which 
has  made  Dunlap's  an  authoritative  account. 
Throughout  the  two  volumes  West's  name  con 
stantly  appears  as  the  instructor  and  guide  of  the 
young  artists  from  America,  and  as  the  chief 
honor  and  glory  of  contemporary  art,  both  of 
America  and  England. 

Stuart  is  handled  with  less  veneration,  and  the 
weaknesses  of  his  character  are  exposed;  but  his 
achievements  are  lauded  without  stint.9  Allston, 
for  his  success  in  historical  work,  which  Dunlap 
considered  the  highest  form  of  painting,  is  ranked 
as  second  only  to  West,  and  in  some  ways  even  his 
superior.  Sully,  Jarvis,  and  Morse  are  cordially 
praised,  and  in  general  the  author  treats  his  fellow 
artists  with  kindly  respect. 

But  when  Dunlap  wrote  the  "Arts  of  Design" 
he  was  an  old  and  broken  man,  and  he  was  not 
always  free  from  petulance  and  irritability.  This 
is  well  illustrated  in  the  passage  on  Tisdale, 

9  For  Volume  I  of  the  "National  Portrait  Gallery" 
Dunlap  provided  a  biography  of  Stuart,  reduced  from  the 
"Arts  of  Design." 


260  JMIiam  Dunlap 

whose  refusal  to  give  any  information  about  him 
self  provoked  this  retort :  "If,  therefore,  I  err,  he 
must  excuse  me — the  world  will  care  nothing 
about  it."10  Dunlap's  republicanism  grew  on  him 
with  the  years,  and  in  this  book  he  took  every  oc 
casion  to  deprecate  patronage  of  art  by  the  nobil 
ity,  and  to  show  his  contempt  for  nobility  in 
general.  But  this  spirit  of  ill-will  and  vindictive- 
ness  was  chiefly  displayed  toward  John  Trumbull. 
Dunlap  hated  Trumbull  for  a  variety  of  reasons. 
That  artist,  because  of  a  slight  misunderstanding, 
had  pettishly  resigned  his  commission  in  the  army 
during  the  Revolution,  and  withdrawn  from  the 
conflict.  He  had  seen  fit  to  malign  West,  whom 
he  looked  on  as  his  enemy.  As  president  of  the 
American  Academy  he  had  treated  younger  artists 
with  contempt,  and  had  declared  war  against  the 
National.  He  received  $32,000  from  the  United 
States  government  for  four  poorly  executed  panels 
in  the  dome  of  the  capitol.  He  was  domineering, 
vain,  mercenary,  and  pusillanimous — of  this  there 
is  ample  proof.  For  these  causes,  and  perhaps 
others  more  personal,  Dunlap  developed  a  violent 
dislike  for  Trumbull,  to  which  he  did  not  fail  to 
give  rein  in  the  "Arts  of  Design."  For  his  best 
work  he  had  nothing  but  praise,  yet  it  was  his 
poorer  work  and  his  faults  of  character  and  con 
duct  that  he  chose  to  dwell  on.  He  magnified 
trifles,  misconstrued  motives,  and  in  general  made 
Trumbull  out  a  much  worse  person  than  he  really 
was.  If  West  may  be  called  the  hero  of  the  his 
tory,  surely  Trumbull  is  the  villain. 
10  Vol.  II,  p.  45- 


Cljc  $on^£Dramatxc  iBriting£      2  6 1 

Another  shortcoming  somewhat  akin  to  this 
show  of  personal  animosity,  is  the  preponderance 
of  mere  gossip  and  scandal  throughout.  The  bio 
graphical  plan  was  adopted  because  it  admitted  of 
this  sort  of  diversion,  which  it  was  thought  would 
lend  popular  interest  to  the  subject.  Dunlap  said : 
"I  believe  the  public  love  anecdote  and  gossip — 
that  I  do,  I  am  quite  certain."11  But  anecdote  and 
gossip  proved  so  attractive  to  him  that  he  forgot 
his  duty  as  a  historian.  We  look  in  vain  for  an 
estimate  of  an  artist's  place  in  the  development  of 
American  art.  We  hear  almost  nothing  of  influ 
ences,  and  nothing  at  all  of  schools.  The  artists 
are  not  even  catalogued  according  to  branches.  An 
engraver  may  be  found  sandwiched  between  a 
painter  and  an  architect.  The  work  sadly  lacks 
organization,  arrangement,  and  proportion,  and 
consequently  fails  to  give  a  perceptible  outline  of 
the  "rise  and  progress  of  the  arts  of  design  in  the 
United  States."  But,  like  the  "American  Theatre," 
it  has,  in  spite  of  its  faults,  a  place  all  its  own  as 
the  repository  of  much  that  would  otherwise  be 
lost. 

The  style  of  this,  Dunlap's  most  elaborate  and 
pretentious  product,  is  appropriately  elaborate  and 
pretentious.  It  was  written  in  an  era  when  Amer 
ican  writers  were  still  addicted  to  the  heavy,  pom 
pous  periods  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  it 
partook  of  the  mannerisms  of  its  age.  The  stylistic 
qualities  which  distinguish  all  Dunlap's  books  are 
here  intensified.  In  striving  for  pregnancy  and 
weight  he  was  sometimes  reduced  to  making  much 

11  "New  York  Mirror,"  Vol.  XI,  p.  248. 


262  iMiiam  SDunlap 

of  little,  with  a  resultant  tone  of  insincerity  and 
affectation.  There  is  too  much  fondness  for  the 
first  person  singular,  which  at  times  is  not  to  be 
distinguished  from  boasting;  yet  this,  like  his 
wordy  discursiveness,  is  not  unpardonable  in  a 
man  of  his  years.  On  the  other  hand,  Dunlap's 
style  often  possesses  an  expressiveness,  a  smooth 
ness,  and  an  animation  which  go  far  toward  aton 
ing  for  its  imperfections. 

Most  of  our  author's  books  were  greeted  by  the 
reviewers  with  amiable  commonplaces,  which  I 
have  not  felt  it  worth  while  to  quote.  But  the 
"Arts  of  Design"  had  a  varied  and  interesting  re 
ception.  The  "Mirror,"  cordial  as  always,  recom 
mended  the  volumes  to  all,  from  the  scholar  to  the 
conquest-sated  belle,  and  predicted  for  it  a  sensa 
tion  across  the  water.12  The  "American  Quar 
terly  Review"  of  Philadelphia  complimented  the 
writer's  industry,  but  aptly  suggested  that  the  title 
be  changed  to  "Anecdotes  of  Painters,  Sculptors, 
Architects,  and  Engravers,  and  of  any  and  every 
body  who  has  had  the  remotest  connection  with 
the  Arts  of  Design  in  the  United  States."  It  con 
tinued  :  "There  is  little  of  the  dignity  of  history  in 
its  gossiping  chapters,  and  much  more  information 
is  communicated  about  the  men  than  the  artists. 
.  .  .  The  original  critical  portions  are  for  the  most 
part  meagre  and  unsatisfactory."13  The  "North 
American  Review"  praised  the  minuteness  of  the 
research,  the  ease  and  clearness  of  the  style,  and 

12  Vol.  XII,  pp.  139,  199- 
is  Vol.  XVII,  pp.  143  ff. 


263 

the  candor  of  the  judgments,  but  found  a  lack  of 
arrangement,  selection,  and  compression  in  the 
material,  and  a  partiality  and  animosity  toward 
some  artists.  It  considered  the  attacks  on  Trum- 
bull  unjust,  and  the  temper  displayed  not  becoming 
to  a  sensible  man.14 

The  "American  Monthly  Magazine"  stoutly 
championed  Trumbull,  and  took  the  first  oppor 
tunity  to  abuse  Dunlap  as  an  artist.  When  his 
painting,  "Richard  and  Kenneth,"  appeared  at  the 
tenth  exhibition  of  the  National  Academy,  the 
magazine  dipped  its  pen  in  vitriol,  and  incon 
tinently  damned  this  "daub  equally  void  of  draw 
ing,  taste  or  effect."  Why  did  the  Academy  permit 
such  an  atrocity  to  blot  its  walls?  It  might  have 
been  done  as  well  by  a  boy  of  fourteen !  An  artist 
who  had  so  bitterly  condemned  his  superiors,  it 
was  asserted,  could  not  complain  if  he  was  sub 
jected  to  a  little  impartial  criticism.15  But  the 
most  violent  denunciation  came  from  an  anony 
mous  writer,  who,  having  contributed  the  sketch 
of  John  Vanderlyn  to  the  "Arts  of  Design,"  felt 
himself  and  the  painter  so  wronged  by  the  changes 
that  Dunlap  made,  that  he  published  a  pamphlet 
in  defense  of  his  friend  and  in  condemnation  of 
the  unlucky  historian.  With  such  utterances  as 
these  did  he  vent  his  wrath : 

"Indeed,  sir,  your  two  bulky  tomes  of  a  thou 
sand  pages,  dignified  by  the  pompous  title  of  a 

i*  Vol.  XLI,  pp.  146  ff. 
15  Vol.  V,  p.  316. 


2  64  BMfliam  SDunfap 

'History'; — what  are  they  but  a  miserable  chron 
icle  of  mere  gossip  and  scandal,  about  upon  a  par 
with  our  daily  political  press  or  police  reports. 
...  As  an  Artist,  and  certainly  not  of  the  first 
class,  you  assume  a  dictation  over  all  of  your  pro 
fession.  .  .  .  The  grave  even,  it  seems,  has  proved 
no  shelter  to  many  of  them,  for  you  have  dragged 
them,  or  their  memoirs,  before  the  public,  but  as  I 
hope  not  before  posterity — to  degrade  them  of 
course,  and  at  the  same  time,  as  certainly  your 
common  profession."16 

As  a  final  verdict  on  the  whole  matter  I  quote 
the  opinion  of  a  modern  student  of  American  art. 
Of  Dunlap,  Mr.  Samuel  Isham  has  said: 

"He  is  our  American  Vasari.  .  .  .  He  had  a 
feeling  for  accuracy  rare  at  the  time.  .  .  .  He  has 
been  called  'the  acrimonious  Dunlap/  but  the 
reader  of  to-day  will  not  find  the  epithet  justified. 
...  It  is  only  in  his  pages  that  we  seem  to  touch 
the  reality  of  West  and  Stuart  and  Trumbull  and 
Allston  and  Sully.  Men  were  as  sensitive  then  as 
to-day,  and  the  men  of  whom  he  wrote  and  their 
friends  were  displeased  at  his  frankness;  but 
viewed  at  the  present  distance  of  time,  he  seems 
rather  kindly.  He  had  his  dislikes,  but  he  was 
harder  on  no  one  than  on  himself."17 

16  "Review  of  the  'Biographical  Sketch'  of  John  Van- 
derlyn,  published  by  William  Dunlap,  in  his  'History  of 
the  Arts  of  Design/  with  Some  Additional  Notices,  re 
specting  Mr.  Vanderlyn,  As  an  Artist."    By  a  Friend  of 
the  Artist.    New  York,  1838,  p.  62. 

17  "History  of  American  Painting/'  pp.  72-3. 


265 

The  closing  period  of  Dunlap's  life  was  occupied 
with  research  in  the  history  of  his  State.  This 
subject  had  of  recent  years  received  considerable 
attention,  and  a  half-dozen  histories  of  New  York, 
written  between  1814  and  1835,  were  in  the  field. 
For  his  authorities,  Dunlap  employed  his  pre 
cursors  to  some  extent,  but  for  the  most  part  he 
went  to  the  sources,  and  minutely  examined  news 
papers,  state  and  private  documents,  letters,  jour 
nals,  etc. 

When  the  pinch  of  poverty  became  so  sharp  as 
to  require  immediate  alleviation,  he  whipped  into 
shape  the  material  he  already  had,  and  in  1837 
published  his  "History  of  New  York,  for  Schools." 
His  model  was  "Uncle  Philip's  Conversations  with 
the  Children  about  New  York,"  written  by  F.  L. 
Hawks  and  printed  in  1835, — a  book  in  which  in 
struction  is  imparted  by  the  question  and  answer 
method.  Uncle  Philip's  chats  ceased  with  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  Dunlap  con 
tinued  the  task.  The  interlocutors  are  supposed 
to  be  Uncle  Betterworth,  aged  seventy-one,  who  is 
engaged  in  writing  a  history  of  the  State,  and  bears 
a  striking  resemblance  to  William  Dunlap;  and 
four  children  between  the  ages  of  eight  and  four 
teen.  John,  the  oldest,  shows  a  perfect  genius  for 
remembering  dates  and  facts ;  William,  aged 
twelve,  speaks  with  the  vocabulary  of  fifty; 
Philip's  function  is  to  shout  "Hurrah !"  in  the 
heroic  moments,  and  Mary  is  frankly  bored  when 
Indians  are  not  the  theme. 

Before  considering  the  war,  Uncle  Betterworth 


266  JOilliam  SDunlap 

questions  the  children  on  what  they  had  learned 
from  Uncle  Philip,  and  thus  the  early  history  from 
Hudson's  discovery  is  presented.  After  the  first 
hundred  pages  the  causes  of  the  Revolution  are 
taken  up  and  discussed  during  the  remainder  of 
the  volume.  At  this  point  the  material  becomes  too 
complex  and  the  style  too  weighty  for  juvenile 
minds.  Volume  II  deals  with  the  Revolution,  and 
ends  with  the  inauguration  of  Washington  in 
1789.  Both  parts,  like  Hawks's  book,  are  well 
sprinkled  with  stories  and  moral  disquisitions  on 
the  evils  of  drinking,  smoking,  idleness,  etc. 

An  examination  of  this  work  in  connection  with 
the  larger  history,  which  followed  it  in  two  or 
three  years,  shows  that  in  the  main  both  came  from 
the  same  manuscript.  The  text-book  is  independ 
ent  through  the  first  half  of  Volume  I,  but  begin 
ning  with  the  causes  of  the  Revolution,  it  contains 
almost  nothing  not  found  in  the  same  words  in 
the  later  and  more  amplified  treatise.  The  situa 
tion  is  probably  this :  Up  to  1837  Dunlap  had  car 
ried  on  his  research  and  written  portions  in  the 
final  form,  with  only  the  larger  history  in  mind. 
Then  being  too  impoverished  to  continue,  he  filled 
the  gaps  in  his  manuscript  in  a  more  juvenile  style, 
and  with  slight  revision  sent  it  to  press.  Later  in 
vestigation  was  given  to  the  early  periods  and  to 
certain  phases  of  the  Revolution,  which  had  not  as 
yet  been  thoroughly  worked  out,  and  the  results 
were  incorporated  in  the  second  publication. 

The  first  part  of  the  "History  of  the  New  Neth 
erlands,  Province  of  New  York,  and  State  of  New 


Clje  ^on^SDcamatit  BSritingg      267 

York,  to  the  Adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion,"  appeared  in  1839.  Beginning  with  the  dis 
covery  of  America,  it  proceeds  with  much  detail 
through  Hudson's  exploration  and  the  Dutch  and 
English  colonization.  The  last  quarter  of  the  vol 
ume  deals  with  the  causes  of  the  war,  and  prac 
tically  parallels  the  text-book.  The  second  part 
was  published  posthumously  in  1840,  with  a  pref 
ace  stating  that  while  Volume  I  was  in  the  press, 
the  author  had  been  stricken  with  a  disease  which 
ultimately  proved  fatal,  and  that  the  material  of 
the  present  volume  had  been  selected  and  arranged 
according  to  the  design  of  the  writer  in  so  far  as  it 
had  been  expressed.  I  infer  that  John  A.  Dunlap 
was  the  editor  from  the  facts  that  the  copyright 
was  secured  by  him,  and  that  he  assisted  his  father 
in  other  literary  labors.  The  second  volume  details 
the  events  of  the  Revolution,  with  undue  stress  on 
the  Arnold-Andre  conspiracy,  and  concludes  with 
the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  an  out 
line  of  which  is  given.  An  appendix  of  two  hun 
dred  and  forty-six  pages  follows,  containing 
Letters,  documents,  extracts  from  early  records, 
and  a  large  quantity  of  "Miscellaneous  Matter" 
apparently  drawn  from  the  newspapers. 

If  Dunlap's  work  be  compared  with  a  good 
modern  history  of  the  State,  it  will  be  seen  that 
very  little  escaped  him  and  that  his  statements  are 
generally  accurate.  As  an  investigator  he  pos 
sessed  distinct  ability;  to  his  task  he  brought  a 
perseverance  and  a  minuteness  of  research  not 
often  to  be  found  in  an  old  and  broken  man.  But 
perhaps  this  is  the  highest  praise  his  last  achieve- 


268  IBiHiam  2DunIaj> 

ment  can  be  given.  As  a  treatise  on  New  York 
history  it  leaves  much  to  be  desired.  It  is  scarcely 
more  than  a  series  of  details  chronologically  ar 
ranged,  and  presented  in  an  impersonal  and  inef 
fective  manner.  There  is  no  proper  proportion  or 
emphasis.  There  is  no  subordination  of  the  unim 
portant,  nor  stressing  of  the  significant;  conse 
quently  the  book  gives  no  clear  idea  of  the  main 
current  of  events.  Indian  affairs,  biography  of 
both  the  small  and  the  great,  episodes  involving 
oppression  or  the  struggle  against  it,  dramatic  or 
picturesque  occurrences, — these  are  disproportion 
ately  prominent  because  they  were  Dunlap's  hob 
bies.  A  defect  resulting  from  all  this  is  that  we 
gain  no  large  view  of  the  development  of  New 
York,  no  connected  idea  of  her  progress  as  a  politi 
cal  unit,  or  of  her  contribution  to  the  history  of  the 
nation.  In  other  words,  Dunlap  was  so  absorbed  in 
the  contemplation  of  the  trees  that  he  failed  to  per 
ceive  the  forest.  Had  he  lived  to  complete  the 
second  volume,  he  might  have  remedied  this  fault 
to  some  extent,  but  probably  not,  for  the  fault 
seems  to  have  been  constitutional.  In  connection 
with  his  Napoleonic  fragments,  his  chronicles  of 
the  theatre  and  art,  and  even  his  large  paintings, 
we  have  noticed  the  same  inability  to  convert  a 
mass  of  details  into  a  progressive  unit. 

The  worth  of  the  book  as  a  historic  document  is 
not  a  little  lessened  by  the  decidedly  partisan  spirit 
displayed.  As  a  Federalist  Dunlap  could  not  for 
get  his  antipathy  to  France,  nor  his  conviction  that 
unqualified  suffrage  was  a  very  dangerous  liberty. 


269 

As  an  American  he  could  not  forget  his  enmity  for 
England,  nor  lose  a  chance  to  cast  aspersions  at 
her. 

But  defective  though  it  is,  the  history  deserves 
as  much  respect  as  any  book  of  its  time  because  of 
the  overwhelming  obstacles  with  which  the  author 
had  to  contend.  Poverty,  old  age,  and  disease  op 
posed  him  at  every  step,  yet  he  did  not  give  up  the 
struggle  until  his  hands  and  mind  were  powerless ; 
and  when  the  second  volume  appeared,  a  few 
months  after  his  death,  his  triumph  was  complete. 
Perhaps  it  is  as  an  example  of  dogged  persever 
ance  and  unspectacular  heroism  that  the  "History 
of  New  York"  has  its  greatest  value. 


Ill 

IT  would  have  been  strange  if  the  energetic,  ver 
satile,  and  improvident  Dunlap  had  not  tried  to 
establish  a  magazine,  inasmuch  as  that  occupation 
was  then  one  of  the  popular  modes  of  losing 
money.  Since  the  founding  of  our  first  magazine 
at  Philadelphia,  in  1741,  the  country  had  seen  mul 
tiplied  dozens  of  the  species  rise,  flourish  for  a  day, 
and  wither.  The  eighteenth  century  alone  wit 
nessed  the  outcropping  of  no  less  than  fifty-seven 
of  these  journalistic  mushrooms,  most  of  which 
expired  within  a  year,  though  two,  the  "New  York 
Magazine;  or,  Literary  Repository"  and  the 
"Massachusetts  Magazine,"  achieved  a  veritable 


2  70  IBiliiam  SDuntap 

Methuselah  existence  of  eight  years  each.18  The 
early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century  had  their 
quota  of  these  ill-fated  enterprises.  One,  however, 
the  'Tort  Folio,"  founded  at  Philadelphia  in  1801 
under  the  editorship  of  Joseph  Dennie,  attained 
the  altogether  unprecedented  age  of  twenty-six 
years  before  it  was  laid  in  the  ancestral  tomb. 

The  modern  monthly  bears  very  little  resem 
blance  to  its  progenitors.  These  pioneers  had 
almost  no  illustrations  or  advertisements.  Their 
pages  were  filled  with  a  variety  of  material  cal 
culated  to  hit  divers  tastes.  A  periodical  of  the 
better  class,  such  as  Charles  Brockden  Brown's 
"Monthly  Magazine,  and  American  Review/'  con 
tained  biographical  sketches,  travel  papers,  essays 
on  superficial  subjects,  accounts  of  remarkable 
sights,  events,  etc.,  occasional  tales,  reviews  of 
books  and  plays,  household  information,  foreign 
and  domestic  occurrences,  extracts  from  European 
periodicals,  and  a  section  devoted  to  poetry.  The 
intellectual  challenge  was  not  great;  the  aim  was 
to  impart  polite  instruction  and  correct  sentiments. 

Dunlap  established  the  "Monthly  Recorder"  in 
April,  1813.  Just  why  he  should  have  tried  to  re 
plenish  his  depleted  finances  by  entering  the  pre 
carious  field  of  journalism  in  the  midst  of  the  war, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  explain,  except  that  he  had 
a  gift  for  tumbling  down  financial  stairways.  Per 
haps  Dennie's  comparative  success  inspired  him; 
but  if  so,  it  was  a  will-o'-the-wisp  inspiration,  for 

18  P.  L.  Ford,  "Check-list  of  Eighteenth  Century  Pe 
riodicals." 


Cljc  |3on^£)ramatic  IDritingg      2  7 1 

after  five  issues  the  "Monthly  Recorder"  fell  into 
the  bog  of  unpaid  and  insufficient  subscriptions, 
which  had  swamped  the  goodly  throng  of  its 
predecessors. 

But  the  "Monthly  Recorder,"  albeit  its  existence 
was  of  most  uncomplimentary  brevity,  was  as 
meritorious  as  the  most  of  its  kind.  Its  contents 
had  as  much  dignity  and  solidity  as  any  of  its  con 
temporaries.  A  synopsis  of  the  April  number  will 
indicate  the  character  of  all.  The  issue  opened 
with  a  biography  of  Dr.  Edward  Miller,  whose 
portrait,  engraved  from  a  painting  by  Dunlap, 
served  as  frontispiece.  There  followed  the  first, 
instalment  of  a  letter-series,  "The  American  in 
Europe";  an  extract  on  eccentric  character  from 
Angeloni's  letters;  an  essay  contrasting  supersti 
tion  and  religion;  two  letters  on  the  theatre 
written  in  the  Jonathan  Oldstyle  manner  by  "Tim 
othy  Teasdale" ;  a  story  of  the  Inquisition ;  an 
article  on  Leslie,  the  painter;  a  memorandum  of 
the  wars  between  the  present  United  States  and 
Canada,  by  S.  L.  Mitchill ;  a  biographical  notice  of 
William  Clifton ;  a  fine  arts  section,  containing  an 
account  of  the  American  Academy,  by  the  secre 
tary;  book  reviews;  notices  of  new  publications; 
a  dramatic  review ;  a  digest  of  public  events ;  and 
a  few  scattered  poems. 

It  was  then  the  modest  custom  to  publish  maga 
zine  articles  anonymously ;  hence  it  is  impossible  to 
say  just  how  much  of  the  contents  of  the  five 
numbers  came  from  Dunlap's  pen,  or  who  his  con 
tributors  were.  But  it  is  easy  to  see  the  editor's 


272  SEHHiam  SDunlap 

hand  frequently,  for  instance  in  the  biography  of 
Miller,  the  Inquisition  tale,  and  the  article  on 
Leslie  in  the  April  issue.  As  for  the  contributors, 
we  know  at  least  that  Mitchill  was  one,  and  that 
John  Dunlap  assisted  in  the  undertaking.19 

Dunlap's  journalistic  activities  were  not  confined 
to  the  editing  of  a  short-lived  magazine.  He  was 
also  a  prolific  writer  for  the  New  York  period 
icals.  The  extent  of  his  work  in  this  direction 
cannot  be  ascertained  because  of  the  practice  of 
anonymity  already  referred  to.  Yet  some  of  his 
articles  were  signed,  and  to  others  he  alluded  in 
his  Diary,  so  that  I  have  been  able  to  locate  about 
nineteen  contributions  to  magazines  and  newspa 
pers.  These  represent  various  types  of  composi 
tion, — translation,  philosophy,  biography,  criticism, 
and  story ;  and  some  are  of  sufficient  interest  to  be 
summarized  here. 

The  earliest  article  which  I  have  found  dates 
from  the  period  of  Godwinian  influence.  It  ap 
peared  in  the  "New  York  Magazine;  or,  Literary 
Repository"  of  October,  1797,  under  the  heading 
"On  Innocence  and  Generosity."  It  was  written 
in  answer  to  St.  Pierre's  "Vindication  of  Divine 
Providence,"  which  had  praised  innocence  as  the 
most  desirable  of  qualities.  Dunlap  declared  a 
consciousness  of  virtue  to  be  preferable  to  that  of 
innocence,  inasmuch  as  the  former  implies  active 
ability  for  good,  while  the  latter  may  imply  only 
an  absence  of  vice.  "The  most  innocent  of  all  ani- 
19  "Arts  of  Design,"  Vol.  I,  p.  272. 


ic  IDritingg      2  73 

mals,"  said  he,  "is  an  oyster."  St.  Pierre  had  also 
expressed  the  sentimentalist's  belief  that  gener 
osity  and  feeling  rather  than  reason  should  be  the 
guide  of  life.  In  reply  Dunlap  said: 

"These  opinions  are  mischievous  in  the  same  de 
gree  that  they  are  unphilosophic  and  unjust.  Let 
man  be  just  and  he  will  never  be  generous ;  for  the 
moment  that,  deaf  to  reason,  and  impelled  by  feel 
ing,  he  oversteps  the  bounds  of  justice,  he  has  done 
a  wrong,  he  has  committed  injustice,  he  has  in 
jured  a  fellow-creature,  and  inflicted  a  wound  on 
society." 

In  the  next  issue  of  the  same  periodical,  Dunlap 
a  second  time  attacked  St.  Pierre.  The  French 
writer  had  argued  for  an  unreasoning  love  of  coun 
try  simply  because  it  is  one's  own.  The  American 
contended  that  love  of  country  should  be  based 
solely  on  the  worth  of  the  country;  that  blind 
patriotism  is  a  frequent  cause  of  stagnation,  and 
a  sure  breeder  of  injustice.  Obviously  Dunlap  had 
drunk  deep  at  the  Godwinian  well. 

The  "Mirror"  of  September  14,  1833,  contained 
a  review  of  Croker's  edition  of  Boswell's  "Life 
of  Johnson."  In  the  manner  of  the  contemporary 
English  reviews,  the  writer  expressed  his  opinions 
on  the  subject  of  the  book  rather  than  on  the  book 
itself.  Dunlap  was  no  admirer  of  Johnson,  the 
philosopher.  He  considered  his  teaching  danger 
ously  immoral  and  a  deliberate  perversion  of  the 
truth.  Johnson's  declaration,  "It  is  better  that 
some  be  unhappy  than  that  none  should  be  happy ; 


2  74  MMKiatn  SDunlap 

which  would  be  the  case  in  a  general  state  of  equal 
ity,"  roused  the  republican's  ire.  In  other  words, 
said  Dunlap,  "it  is  better  that  the  mass  of  man 
kind  should  be  poor  and  oppressed,  vicious  and  un 
happy  .  .  .  because,  otherwise,  the  great  could  not 
revel  in  that  superfluity  which  constitutes  happi 
ness."  Equality,  he  maintained,  far  from  destroy 
ing  happiness,  would  increase  it  by  doing  away 
with  ignorance  and  vice.  "How  is  it,"  said  John 
son,  "that  we  hear  the  loudest  yelps  for  liberty 
among  the  drivers  of  negroes  ?"  Dunlap  answered 
that  the  loud  yelps  came  from  those  upon  whom 
England  had  forced  negro  slavery,  and  that  the 
yelpers  were  those  who  were  striving  to  abolish 
the  evil  after  having  shaken  off  the  chains  of 
foreign  dominance,  which  Johnson  would  have 
riveted  on  them.  While  admiring  the  lexicog 
rapher's  powers  of  mind,  the  writer  considered 
his  political  and  moral  doctrines  perniciously  false. 

An  essay  on  art,  which  Dunlap  had  read  before 
the  New  York  Lyceum,  was  published  in  the 
"American  Monthly  Magazine"  of  February,  1836. 
He  stated  the  principle  that  art  is  a  product  of 
national  and  individual  independence,  and  that 
artists  must  be  left  free  to  direct  their  own  insti 
tutions  if  they  are  to  succeed.  (The  old  quarrel 
between  the  two  academies  had  not  been  for 
gotten.)  To  those  men  of  wealth  who  tried  to 
run  the  academies,  he  recommended  that  they 
could  better  serve  the  cause  by  purchasing  foreign 
masterpieces  and  establishing  museums. 

Nothing  that  Dunlap  ever  wrote  is  more  read- 


275 

able  than  two  picaresque  tales,  published  in  the 
"Mirror"  of  November  12,  1836,  and  January  7, 
1837.  They  deal  with  a  pre-Revolutionary  rogue, 
Tom  Bell,  who  was  extraordinarily  ingenious  at 
parting  the  fool  and  his  money.  He  also  had  the 
faculty  of  escaping  with  the  ill-gotten  gains,  leav 
ing  his  accomplices  to  pay  the  penalty.  Both  tales 
are  told  with  sprightliness  and  animation,  and  one 
could  desire  further  exploits  of  the  entertainingly 
iniquitous  Tom  Bell. 


IV 

DUNLAP  lived  in  an  age  when  drinking  was  almost 
a  universal  practice,  and  when  drunkenness  was 
much  more  common  among  people  of  respectability 
than  it  is  to-day.  He  himself,  while  not  all  his  life 
a  total  abstainer,  was  always  very  moderate  in  his 
potations,  unless  it  might  have  been  during  his 
residence  in  England.  The  extent  of  his  temper 
ance  is  well  illustrated  by  an  incident  which  oc 
curred  at  a  banquet  given  in  honor  of  Cooke.  A 
decanter  was  upset  on  the  table,  and  the  wine 
running  from  Cooke  toward  Dunlap,  the  actor  ex 
claimed,  "See!  is  it  not  very  strange?  The  wine 
runs  from  me!  and  toward  that  man,  too,  of  all 
others." 

Dunlap  replied,  "Do  you  not  know  the  reason  ?" 

"No— what  is  it?" 

"I  never  abuse  it."20 

20  "Memoirs  of  Cooke,"  Vol.  II,  p.  318. 


276  HMKiam  SDunlap 

By  personal  experience  Dunlap  found  that  alco 
hol  was  not  essential,  by  observation  he  became 
convinced  that  it  was  dangerous,  and  eventually  he 
developed  into  a  temperance  advocate.  To  propa 
gate  his  views,  at  the  age  of  seventy  he  published 
a  novel  called  "Thirty  Years  Ago;  or,  The  Mem 
oirs  of  a  Water  Drinker." 

The  incidents  center  about  the  Park  Theatre  of 
New  York,  a  rather  unexpected  haunt  for  a  tee 
totaler.  The  abstemious  hero  is  a  comedian, 
blest  with  the  name  of  Zebediah  Spiffard,  whose 
diminutive  body  is  topped  off  with  a  face  of  ex 
ceeding  homeliness  and  a  shock  of  orange-red  hair, 
— truly  a  novel  hero  for  a  novel.  Zebediah  as  a 
boy  became  a  confirmed  and  unshakable  water- 
drinker  because  of  the  fatal  inebriety  of  his 
mother.  At  the  opening  of  the  story  the  comedian 
has  just  married,  on  brief  acquaintance  and  for 
reasons  not  specified,  a  tall  and  stately  tragedienne, 
both  larger  and  older  than  himself,  and  of  none 
too  savory  a  reputation.  Poor  Spiffard  soon  learns 
to  his  unutterable  woe  that  his  wife  and  mother- 
in-law  are  also  slaves  of  the  bottle.  (Dunlap  ap 
parently  believed  in  woman's  rights.) 

The  heroine,  Emma  Portland,  a  cousin  of  Mrs. 
Spiffard's,  is  one  of  those  transcendingly  beauti 
ful  maidens  whom  novelists  have  ever  loved  to 
create.  Her  angelic  face  is  crowned  by  a  pro 
fusion  of  flowing  tresses  that  are  forever  escap 
ing  from  confinement  and  falling  in  cascades  about 
her  lovely  form.  Her  mind  is  pure  and  unsullied 
as  a  lily,  and  her  days  are  spent  in  charitable  deeds. 


277 

Her  fiance  (for  in  this  curious  book  the  hero  and 
heroine  have  no  designs  on  each  other)  is  Henry 
Johnson,  a  poor  but  sterling  youth  with  a  sick 
mother  to  care  for. 

The  lesson  of  temperance  is  powerfully  enforced 
by  the  drunken  exploits  of  Cooke,  who  is  one 
of  the  leading  characters  of  the  tale.  One  night 
the  actor  is  found  dead  drunk  in  the  snow,  and 
being  carried  to  Henry's  home,  is  recognized  by 
Mrs.  Johnson  as  her  one-time  husband  and  the 
father  of  her  son.21 

In  the  closing  chapters  Mrs.  Spiffard,  who  has 
gone  from  bad  to  worse,  commits  suicide,  a  de 
bauched  aunt  of  Zebediah's  dies  of  alcoholism,  and 
Cooke  is  borne  to  a  drunkard's  grave.  The 
comedian  now  turns  preacher  and  devotes  him 
self  to  organizing  temperance  societies;  while 
Henry  and  Emma  receive  the  reward  of  virtue, 
and  are  happily  married. 

The  novel  is  Dunlap's  least  praiseworthy  book. 
It  is  without  plot  or  definite  structure,  and  the 
content  is  often  ludicrous.  The  strained  and  ex 
aggerated  language,  the  featuring  of  trifling  epi 
sodes,  the  over-wrought  sentimentality,  the  un- 
naturalness  of  the  characters,  the  shallow  and 
crudely  enforced  moralizing,  and  the  multiplied 
horrors  of  strong  drink  cause  the  "Water  Drinker" 
to  rank  as  an  inferior  specimen  of  Sunday-school 
fiction. 

21  Dtmlap  admitted  that  there  was  no  basis  in  reality 
for  assuming  this  marriage,  but  it  was  in  keeping  with 
Cooke's  marital  record. 


2  7  8  JEilliam  SDuntop 

But  a  certain  amount  of  interest  must  be  con 
ceded  it.  There  are  hints  of  the  appearance  and 
customs  of  old  New  York,  glimpses  behind  the 
scenes  at  the  Park  Theatre,  and  side-lights  on 
Cooke,  all  of  which  are  worth  reading,  though  not 
of  especial  value.  The  book  is  chiefly  interesting 
for  the  way  in  which  the  author  has  utilized  his 
acquaintanceship  and  his  experiences  for  the  mak 
ing  of  a  story.  Besides  Cooke,  a  half-dozen  other 
real  people,  including  T.  A.  Cooper,  Drs.  Francis 
and  McLean,  and  Governor  Tompkins,  are  intro 
duced  by  name;  and  two  or  three  more  are  pre 
sented  under  a  disguise.  The  portrait  of  the  re 
doubtable  Zebediah  himself  was  unquestionably 
drawn  from  William  Twaits,  the  comedian ;  and 
Treadwell,  in  whose  law  office  Spiff ard  at  one  time 
studied,  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  Robert 
Treat  Paine,  Jr. 

As  for  the  incidents,  at  least  half  of  them  are  to 
be  found  in  essence  in  the  "Memoirs  of  Cooke," 
the  "American  Theatre,"  and  the  Diary.  Several 
elements  in  Zebediah's  youth  are  autobiographical, 
for  instance  the  favorite  books,  the  trip  to  Ox 
ford  and  Stamford,  and  the  visit  to  the  battle-field 
of  Quebec,  where  an  ancestor  had  bled.  There  is 
an  elaborate  hoax  played  on  the  comedian  by  his 
professional  friends,  which  is  recorded  in  the 
"American  Theatre,"  with  Twaits  as  the  victim. 
There  is  a  fake  duel  between  Cooper  and  Cooke, 
elaborated  from  the  "Memoirs."  There  is  an  ex 
cursion  to  a  mad-house,  extracted  almost  bodily 
from  Volume  XXX  of  the  Diary.  Were  it  worth 


2  79 

while,  numerous  other  instances  of  the  same  thing 
might  be  cited. 

In  some  sense  the  book  is  an  epitome  of  Dun- 
lap's  mind.  None  of  his  favorite  interests  or 
opinions  is  omitted.  The  theatre  and  its  need  of 
reform  and  government  control,  art,  George  Wash 
ington,  Yankee  and  Irish  servants,  sentimentalism, 
moralizing,  hatred  of  slavery  and  belief  in  coloni 
zation,  contempt  for  English  snobbery,  suspicion 
of  France, — such  are  the  warp  and  woof  of  the 
novel  as  they  were  of  its  author's  mental  fabric. 
Even  the  geography  of  the  book  is  typical,  em 
bracing  as  it  does  Stamford  and  Virginia,  the  ex 
tremes  of  Dunlap's  peregrinations. 

With  all  its  imperfections,  the  "Water  Drinker" 
was  well  received  and  warmly  reviewed.  To  a 
modern  reader  it  is  merely  a  curiosity,  deserving 
of  respect  as  a  serious  effort  to  promote  temper 
ance  when  temperance  was  unpopular,  but  devoid 
of  merit  as  a  piece  of  literature. 

There  were  few  kinds  of  writing  that  Dunlap  did 
not  attempt.  His  non-dramatic  works  testify  to 
an  unflagging  energy  and  a  variety  of  interests  that 
would  be  creditable  to  any  one,  and  especially  so 
to  a  man  who  had  gained  prominence  in  other  lines 
of  endeavor  as  well.  These  works  have  striking 
defects  and  some  are  almost  worthless,  yet  a  few 
are  of  such  importance  as  to  hold  a  unique  posi 
tion  in  their  respective  fields. 


CHAPTER   VI 
CONCLUSION 

WILLIAM  DUNLAP  has  never  ranked 
among  our  distinguished  men  of  letters, 
and  he  will  never  do  so.  He  labored  as  zealously 
as  any,  but  no  amount  of  application  could  make 
up  for  the  gift  that  he  lacked.  He  challenges  our 
interest  almost  wholly  as  a  pioneer.  He  took  up 
his  pen  when  the  literature  of  the  United  States 
was  still  feeble  and  ill-supported.  He  threw  him 
self  especially  into  the  neglected  and  unremunera- 
tive  field  of  American  drama,  and  though  he  pro 
duced  nothing  of  lasting  merit,  he  surpassed  the 
work  of  his  forerunners,  he  established  play-writ 
ing  as  a  respectable  profession,  he  stimulated 
others  to  follow  his  example,  and  he  exerted  a 
distinct  influence  in  determining  the  course  of  our 
drama  during  the  last  years  of  the  eighteenth 
century, — not  by  his  original  conceptions,  to  be 
sure,  but  by  imitating  English  types. 

As  manager  of  the  New  York  theatre,  he  was 
able  to  bring  his  innovations  before  the  public,  and 
to  hasten  their  adoption  by  his  contemporaries. 
This  position  also  enabled  him  to  gain  a  hearing 
for  other  native  dramatists,  and  thus  to  encourage 
further  activity  in  the  same  direction.  He  per 
formed  an  additional  service  of  real  importance 
by  translating  and  staging  a  large  number  of 
280 


Conclusion  281 

French  and  German  plays.  Hitherto  American 
theatre-goers  had  been  almost  totally  ignorant  of 
foreign  drama  except  that  of  England,  but  Dun- 
lap  gave  prominence  to  other  countries  as  well, 
and  so  helped  broaden  the  outlook  of  our  citizens 
on  the  literature  of  the  world. 

Upon  the  theatre  as  an  institution  his  effect  was 
less  marked.  Yet  he  emphasized  scenery  more 
than  had  been  done  before,  and  he  made  the  play 
house  as  moral  and  intellectual  as  his  patrons 
would  permit. 

But  Dunlap's  achievements  were  by  no  means 
confined  to  the  theatre.  His  non-dramatic  writ 
ings  were  numerous;  and  indeed  his  present-day 
value  rests  on  some  of  these,  rather  than  on  his 
plays.  As  the  biographer  of  George  Frederick 
Cooke  and  Charles  Brockden  Brown,  and  as  the 
historian  of  the  American  stage  and  American  art, 
though  sometimes  prone  to  error,  he  recorded  a 
large  quantity  of  information  that  could  have  come 
from  no  one  else,  and  that  greatly  enriches  our 
knowledge  of  those  subjects  to-day. 

Still  another  prominent  line  of  Dunlap's  en 
deavor  was  painting.  The  making  of  miniatures, 
oil  portraits,  and  exhibition  pictures  occupied  a 
considerable  portion  of  his  life.  His  exhibition 
pictures  seem  to  have  perished,  with  no  attendant 
loss  to  art,  but  the  miniatures  and  portraits  which 
remain  indicate  that  at  his  best  he  was  a  thor 
oughly  capable  painter.  But  in  this  field  again 
Dunlap's  place  is  primarily  that  of  a  pioneer.  He 
was  one  of  the  early  New  Yorkers  to  take  up 


282 

painting  as  a  profession,  he  was  a  founder  of  the 
first  art  academy  in  New  York  worthy  of  the 
name,  and  he  was  in  some  sense  a  missionary  of 
art  to  the  more  remote  communities  by  virtue  both 
of  his  itinerant  occupation  and  of  his  traveling 
show  pictures. 

As  a  workman,  Dunlap  belongs  to  what  Charles 
Lamb  has  called  the  great  race — the  borrowers. 
Having  a  good  deal  of  constructive  skill  but  no 
imagination,  he  drew  his  material  from  the  most 
available  sources.  In  his  painting  he  borrowed 
wholesale  from  Benjamin  West.  In  his  plays  he 
borrowed  from  Shakespeare,  Dekker,  and  the 
English  writers  of  his  own  day,  from  novels,  news 
papers,  and  history.  In  his  translations,  them 
selves  a  species  of  borrowing,  he  borrowed  from 
anybody  who  had  already  adapted  the  same  pieces. 

But  by  means  of  his  borrowing  Dunlap  aided  the 
progress  of  American  culture.  Before  the  new 
and  uncertain  nation  could  develop  any  sort  of 
culture  of  its  own,  it  must  first  acquire  a  sense  of 
culture  and  a  desire  for  it,  and  this  could  most 
readily  be  brought  about  through  a  familiarity  with 
the  culture  of  the  Old  World.  By  helping, 
through  his  imitations  and  borrowings,  to  gain  cur 
rency  in  the  United  States  for  the  art  and  litera 
ture  of  Europe,  he  made  a  small  but  definite  con 
tribution  to  the  intellectual  growth  of  the  young 
nation. 

In  a  survey  of  Dunlap's  work,  two  facts  stand 
out  most  clearly.  In  the  first  place,  he  was  un 
usually  prolific  and  surprisingly  versatile.  And 


Condition  283 

in  each  department  of  his  activity,  while  producing 
much  that  was  decidedly  bad,  he  also  produced 
some  results  that  were  more  than  ordinarily  good, 
considering  his  period.  Second,  whether  his  out 
put  was  good  or  bad,  his  labor  was  prompted  by 
motives  which  deserve  complete  respect.  He  lived 
at  a  time  when  American  art  and  literature  were 
compelled  to  struggle  for  existence,  with  no 
popular  encouragement  and  support.  Yet  he  was 
convinced  that  art  and  literature  were  of  more 
value  than  dollars  and  cents.  He  allied  himself 
with  the  exponents  of  these  pursuits;  and  through 
out  a  long  life,  marked  often  by  severe  poverty  and 
distress,  he  remained  faithful  to  the  cause  which 
he  had  espoused. 


of  ^iiliant 


ORIGINAL  DRAMATIC  WORKS 

1  "The  Modest  Soldier  ;  or,  Love  in  New  York." 

Written  1787. 

2  "The  Father;  or,  American  Shandyism." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
September  7,  1789. 

Printed  at  New  York,  September  14,  1789.  Re 
printed  at  Halifax  immediately.  Also  in  the 
"Massachusetts  Magazine;  or,  Monthly  Mu 
seum,"  October  and  November,  1789,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  620-29,  649-55.  Revised  as 

"The  Father  of  an  Only  Child." 

Printed  in  the  "Dramatic  Works  of  William 

Dunlap,"  Vol.  I,  Philadelphia,  1806. 

Copies  of  this  volume  were  broken  up  by  David 

Longworth,   and   each   play   was   issued   sepa 

rately  with  an  additional  title-page,  New  York, 

1807.    This  volume  was  reissued  as  Vol.  XXII 

of     Longworth's     "English     and     American 

Stage,"  New  York,  1808. 

The  edition  of  1789  was  reprinted  as  No.  2  of 

the  Publications  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  New 

York,  1887. 

1  For  a  complete  title-page  bibliography  of  Dunlap,  see 
Oscar  Wegelin,  "A  Bibliographical  Checklist  of  the  Plays 
and  Miscellaneous  Writings  of  William  Dunlap."  In 
"Bibliographica  Americana,"  edited  by  Charles  F.  Heart- 
man.  Vol.  I,  New  York,  1916. 
284 


JBifliam  SDunlap'g  J^ritingg       285 

3  "Darby's  Return." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
November  24,  1789. 

Printed  at  New  York,  December,  1789.  Re 
printed  in  the  "New  York  Magazine;  or,  Lit 
erary  Repository,"  January,  1790,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
47-51.  Also  at  Philadelphia,  1791.  In  the 
"Dramatic  Works  of  William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  I, 
Philadelphia,  1806.  Reissued  by  Longworth  in 
1807  and  1808  as  was  "The  Father."  In  second 
series  No.  8  of  the  Publications  of  the  Dunlap 
Society,  New  York,  1899,  Appendix. 

4  "The  Miser's  Wedding."     Sometimes  called 
"The  Wedding." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
June,  1793. 

5  "The  Fatal  Deception;  or,  The  Progress  of 
Guilt." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
April  24,  1794. 
Printed  as 
"Leicester." 

In  the  "Dramatic  Works  of  William  Dunlap," 
Vol.  I,  Philadelphia,  1806.  Reissued  by  Long- 
worth  in  1807  and  1808  as  was  "The  Father." 

6  "Shelty's  Travels." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
April  24,  1794. 

7  "Fontainville  Abbey." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
February  17,  1795. 

Epilogue  printed  in  the  "New  York  Magazine ; 
or,  Literary  Repository,"  May,  1795,  Vol.  VI, 


286  ISiHiam  SDunlap 

p.  183.  The  play  printed  in  the  "Dramatic 
Works  of  William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  I,  Philadel 
phia,  1806.  Reissued  by  Longworth  in  1807 
and  1808  as  was  "The  Father." 

8  "The  Archers;  or,  Mountaineers  of  Switzer 
land."     Sometimes  called  "William  Tell;  or, 
The  Archers." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 

April  18,  1796. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1796. 

9  "The  Mysterious  Monk." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
October  31,  1796. 
Printed  as 

"Ribbemont ;  or,  The  Feudal  Baron." 

New  York,  1803.  In  Longworth's  "English 
and  American  Stage,"  Vol.  I,  New  York, 
1803  (?). 

10  "The  Knight's  Adventure." 

Revised  by  John  Hodgkinson  as 

"The  Man  of  Fortitude ;  or,  The  Knight's  Ad 
venture." 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 
June  7,  1797. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1807.  The  title-page 
bears  only  Hodgkinson's  name. 

11  "Andre." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  March 
30,  1798. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1798.  London,  1799. 
The  edition  of  1798  was  reprinted  as  No.  4  of 
the  Publications  of  the  Dunlap  Society,  New 


IDiUtam  SDunlap'g  J©riring£       287 

York,  1887.  Also  in  "Representative  Ameri 
can  Plays,"  edited  by  Arthur  Hobson  Quinn, 
New  York,  1917. 

12  "Sterne's  Maria;  or,  The  Vintage." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Janu 
ary  14,  1799. 

13  "The  Natural  Daughter." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  8,  1799. 

14  "The  Temple  of  Independence." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  22,  1799. 

15  "The  Italian  Father." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  April 
15,  I799- 

Printed  at  New  York,  1810.  In  "Dramatic 
Works  of  William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  II,  New 
York,  1816. 

16  "The  Knight  of  Guadalquiver." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  De 
cember  5,  1800. 

17  "The  Soldier  of  '76." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  23,  1801. 

1 8  "The  Retrospect;  or,  The  American  Revolu 
tion." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  July 
5,  1802. 

19  "Liberal  Opinions." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Janu 
ary,  1803. 


288  IBiHiam  SDunlap 

20  "The  Glory  of  Columbia — Her  Yeomanry !" 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  July 
4,  1803. 

"The  Songs,  Duets,  and  Chorusses,"  printed  at 
New  York,  1803.    Also  in  Longworth's  "Eng 
lish    and    American    Stage,"    Vol.    XV,    New 
York,  c.  1806. 
The  play  printed  at  New  York,  1817. 

21  "Bonaparte  in  England." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  De 
cember  19,  1803. 

22  "The  Proverb;  or,  Conceit  Can  Cure;  Con 
ceit  Can  Kill." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  20,  1804. 

23  "Lewis   of    Monte    Blanco;   or,   The   Trans 

planted  Irishman." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  March 
12,  1804. 

24  "The  Freedom  of  the  Seas."    A  song. 

Sung  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  July  4, 

1810. 

Printed    in    the    "New   York    Evening    Post," 

July    3    and    5,    1810.      Also    with    "Yankee 

Chronology;  or,  Huzza,  for  the  Constitution!" 

New  York,  1812. 

25  "Yankee  Chronology."     A  song. 

Sung  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  July  4, 

1812. 

Augmented  into  an  interlude, 

"Yankee  Chronology;  or,  Huzza  for  the  Con 
stitution  !" 


i©flliam  SDunlap'g  Wtiting^      289 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Sep 
tember  7,  1812. 
Printed  at  New  York,  1812. 

26  "Yankee  Tars."    A  song. 

Sung  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Decem 
ber  10,  1812. 

Printed  with  "Yankee  Chronology;  or,  Huzza. 
for  the  Constitution !"    New  York,  1812. 

27  "The  Battle  of  New  Orleans." 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  July 
4,  1816  (?). 

28  "The  Flying  Dutchman." 

Played   at   the    Bowery   Theatre,    New   York, 
May  25,  1827. 

29  "A  Trip  to  Niagara;  or,  Travellers  in  Amer 
ica." 

Played   at   the   Bowery   Theatre,   New   York, 
November  28,  1828. 
Printed  at  New  York,  1830. 

30  "Forty  and  Twenty."    Original  or  translated  ? 

Unacted. 

31  "Robespierre."     Original  or  translated? 

Unacted. 

DRAMATIC  TRANSLATIONS 
a.  From  the  French 

i    "Tell  Truth  and  Shame  the  Devil."     (Robi- 
neau.) 

Played  at  the  John  Street  Theatre,  New  York, 

January  9,  1797. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1797. 


2  90  iDriliam  SDunlap 

2  "The  School  for  Soldiers."     (Mercier.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  July 
4,  1799. 

3  "The  Robbery."    (Monvel.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  De 
cember  30,  1799. 

4  "Abbe  de  1'fipee."     (Bouilly.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  March 
8,  1801. 

5  "The  Merry  Gardener."     (Author  unknown.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  3,  1802. 

6  "The  Voice  of  Nature."    (Caigniez.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  4,  1803. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1803.  Second  edition, 
1807.  In  Longworth's  "English  and  Ameri 
can  Stage,"  Vol.  XXI,  New  York,  c.  1808.  In 
the  "Dramatic  Works  of  William  Dunlap," 
Vol.  II,  New  York,  1816. 

7  "The    Wife   of    Two   Husbands."      (Pixere- 
court.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  April 
4,  1804. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1804.  Second  edition, 
1811.  In  Longworth's  "English  and  Ameri 
can  Stage,"  Vol.  Ill,  New  York,  c.  1804.  In 
the  "Dramatic  Works  of  William  Dunlap," 
Vol.  Ill,  New  York,  1816. 

8  "Nina."  (Marsollier.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  De 
cember  28,  1804. 


BMIiam  £DunIap'£  iBritingg       2  9 1 

9    "Thirty  Years ;  or,  The  Life  of  a  Gamester." 
(Goubaux  and  Ducange.) 

Played  at  the  Bowery  Theatre,  New  York, 
February  22,  1828. 

b.  From  the  German 

1  "The  Stranger."     (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  De 
cember  10,  1798. 

2  "Lovers'  Vows."    (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  March 
n,  1799. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1814.  In  the  "Dramatic 
Works  of  William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  Ill,  New 
York,  1816. 

3  "Count  Benyowski."     (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  April 
i,  1799. 

4  "Don  Carlos."    (Schiller.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  May 
6,  1799. 

5  "Indians  in  England."    (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  June 
14,  1799. 

6  "False  Shame."    (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  De 
cember  n,  1799. 

7  "The  Wild  Goose  Chace."    (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Janu 
ary  24,  1800. 

Printed  as  No.  i  of  "The  German  Theatre" 
(Dunlap),  New  York,  March,  1800. 


292  i©iHram  SDunlap 

8  "The  Force  of  Calumny."    (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  5,  1800. 

9  "The  Virgin  of  the  Sun."    (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  March 
12,  1800. 

Printed  as  No.  II  of  "The  German  Theatre" 
(Dunlap),  New  York,  March,  1800. 

10  "Pizarro  in  Peru ;  or,  The  Death  of  Rolla." 

(Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  March 
26,  1800. 

Printed  as  No.  Ill  of  "The  German  Theatre" 
(Dunlap),  New  York,  May,  1800. 

11  "The  Stranger's  Birthday."     (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  April 
23,  1800. 

12  "Fraternal  Discord."     (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Oc 
tober  24,  1800. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1809.  In  "Dramatic 
Works  of  William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  II,  New 
York,  1816. 

13  "Abaellino,  the  Great  Bandit."   (Zschokke.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  n,  1801. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1802.  Another  edition, 
1803.  So-called  second  edition,  1807.  Third 
edition,  1814.  Fourth  edition,  1820.  In  Long- 
worth's  "English  and  American  Stage,"  Vol. 
I,  New  York,  1803  (?).  In  the  "Dramatic 
Works  of  William  Dunlao,"  Vol.  Ill,  New 
York,  1816. 


'g  i©ritingg       293 

14  "Where  Is  He?"     (Author  unknown.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  De 
cember  2,  1 80 1. 

15  "Peter  the  Great;  or,  The  Russian  Mother." 
(Babo.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  No 
vember  15,  1802. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1814.  In  the  "Dramatic 
Works  of  William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  Ill,  New 
York,  1816. 

1 6  "The  Good  Neighbor."    (Iffland.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  Feb 
ruary  28,  1803. 

Printed  at  New  York,  1814.  In  the  "Dramatic 
Works  of  William  Dunlap,"  Vol.  II,  New 
York,  1816. 

17  "The  Blind  Boy."     (Kotzebue.) 

Played  at  the  Park  Theatre,  New  York,  March 
30,  1803. 

18  "La  Perouse."     (Kotzebue.) 

Unacted. 

DOUBTFUL  ATTRIBUTIONS 

1  "Self-immolation;      or,      Family     Distress." 
(Kotzebue.) 

2  "The  Count  of  Burgundy."    (Kotzebue.) 

3  "The  Corsicans;  or,  The  Dawnings  of  Love." 
(Kotzebue.) 

4  "Fiesco."     (Schiller.) 

5  "Blue  Beard;  or,  Female  Curiosity." 

6  "The  Africans." 

7  "Rinaldo  Rinaldini." 


294  JDilliam  SDunlap 

NON-DRAMATIC  WORKS 

1  "Ella — A  Norwegian  Tale." 

and 
"Cololoo — An  Indian  Tale." 

In  "American  Poems,  Selected  and  Original," 
Vol.  I,  Litchfield  (Connecticut,  1793).  Also 
in  "The  Columbian  Muse,  A  Selection  of 
American  Poetry  from  Various  Authors  of 
Established  Reputation,"  New  York,  1794. 

2  "Memoirs  of  the  Life  of   George   Frederick 
Cooke."    Two  volumes. 

New  York,  1813.  London,  1813.  London, 
second  edition,  1815. 

3  "The  Monthly  Recorder." 

New  York,  April  to  August,  1813.  Collected 
as  "A  Record,  Literary  and  Political,  of  Five 
Months  in  the  Year  1813.  By  William  Dun- 
lap  and  Others." 

4  A    Supplement    of    54   pages    to    Francis    L. 
Clarke's  "Life  of  Wellington." 

New  York,  1814. 

5  "A  Narrative  of  the  Events  which  followed 
Bonaparte's  Campaign  in  Russia  to  the  Period 
of  his  Dethronement." 

Hartford,  1814.    Also  printed  as 
A  Supplement  of  75  pages  to  Sir  Robert  Ker 
Porter's  "Narrative  of  the  Campaign  in  Rus 
sia,  During  the  Year  1812." 

Hartford,  1814.    Second  edition,  1815. 


295 

6  "The  Life  of  Charles  Brockden  Brown."  Two 
volumes. 

Philadelphia,    1815.     London,    1822, — one   vol 
ume. 

7  "Description  of  Dunlap's  Painting  of  Christ 
Rejected   By  the   High   Priests,    Elders   and 
People,   When   brought   by    Pilate    from   the 
Judgment  Hall  to  the  Pavement." 

Norfolk  (1822). 

8  "Address   to    the    Students   of    the    National 
Academy  of  Design,  at  the  Delivery  of  the 
Premiums,  Monday,  the  i8th  of  April,  1831." 

New   York,    1831.     London,   "Library   of  the 
Fine  Arts,"  1832,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  143-51. 

9  "A  History  of  the  American  Theatre." 

New   York,    1832.      London,    1833, — two    vol 
umes. 

10  "History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Arts 
of    Design    in    the    United    States."      Two 
volumes. 

New  York,  1834. 

11  "Gilbert    Charles    Stuart."      A    biographical 
sketch  in  the  "National   Portrait  Gallery  of 
Distinguished  Americans,"  Vol.  I. 

New  York,  1834.     Philadelphia,  1852. 

12  "Charles  Brockden  Brown."     A  biographical 
sketch  in  the  "National  Portrait  Gallery  of 
Distinguished  Americans,"  Vol.  III. 

New  York,  1836.     Philadelphia,  1852. 


296  i^tfliam  SDunlap 

13  "Thirty  Years  Ago;  or,  The  Memoirs  of  a 
Water  Drinker."    Two  volumes. 

New  York,  1836.    Reprinted  as 

"Memoirs  of  a  Water  Drinker."     Two  vol 
umes  in  one. 
New  York,  1837. 

14  "A  History  of  New  York,  for  Schools."    Two 
volumes. 

New  York,  1837.     Second  edition,  1855. 

15  "History  of  the  New  Netherlands,  Province  of 
New  York,  and  State  of  New  York,  to  the 
Adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution."    Two 
volumes. 

New  York,  Vol.  I,  1839;  Vol.  II,  1840. 

CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  PERIODICALS 

THIS  list  does  not  pretend  to  include  all  of  Dun- 
lap's  magazine  and  newspaper  contributions.  A 
complete  bibliography  is  impossible  because  much 
of  his  work  of  this  nature  was,  no  doubt,  published 
anonymously.  Only  signed  articles  or  those  to 
which  he  alluded  in  his  Diary  are  included  here. 

1  "The  Zephyrs,  An  Idyl.    (Translated  from  the 
German  of  Gesner,  by  W.  Dunlap.)" 

"New  York   Magazine;   or,   Literary   Reposi 
tory,"  December,  1795,  Vol.  VI,  p.  760. 

2  "First  Idyl  of  Gesner.    (Translated  from  the 
German  by  Wm.  Dunlap.)    Daphne— Chloe." 

"New   York   Magazine;   or,   Literary   Reposi 
tory,"  January,  1796,  new  series,  Vol.  I,  p.  49. 


!l£>ifliam  SDunlap'g  i^ritingg       297 

3  "On  Innocence  and  Generosity." 

"New  York  Magazine;  or,  Literary  Reposi 
tory,"  October,  1797,  new  series,  Vol.  II,  p. 
5i8. 

4  "Remarks  on  the  Love  of  Country." 

"New  York  Magazine;  or,  Literary  Reposi 
tory/'  November,  1797,  new  series,  Vol.  II, 
p.  582. 

5  "Biographical    Sketch    of    the    Late    Gilbert 
Stuart.   [By  William  Dunlap,  Esq.]" 

"Knickerbocker,"  April,  1833,  Vol.  I,  p.  195. 

6  "Scraps  and  Miscellanies.     By  William  Dun- 
lap,  Esq."  (a)  "Thomas  Dowse."  (b)  "Speci 
men  of  Indian  Eloquence." 

"Knickerbocker,"  May,  1833,  Vol.  I,  pp.  281-4. 

7  "Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson." 

"New  York  Mirror,"  September  14,  1833,  Vol. 
XI,  p.  82. 

8  "English  Travellers." 

"New  York  Mirror,"  October  5,  1833,  Vol.  XI, 
p.  in. 

9  Review  of  a  medical  book  by  Dr.   William 

Beaumont. 
"Evening  Star,"  October  10,  1833. 

10  "Memoir    of     Thomas     Abthorpe     Cooper." 

"New  York  Mirror,"  November  2,  1833,  Vol. 

XI,  p.  142. 

11  "The  Ghost  Murderer.    By  William  Dunlap." 

"New  York  Mirror,"  January   17,   1835,  Vol. 

XII,  p.  225. 


298  IDilliam  2DunIap 

12  "Proceedings  of  the  American  Lyceum.     Es 
say  on  the  Influence  of  the  Arts  of  Design; 
and  the  True  Modes  of  Encouraging  and  Per 
fecting  Them.    By  William  Dunlap." 

"American     Monthly     Magazine,"     February, 
1836,  Vol.  VII,  p.  113. 

13  "Critical  Hints."    Signed  "W.  D." 

"American    Monthly    Magazine,"    May,    1836, 
Vol.  VII,  p.  502. 

14  "Tom  Bell.     A  Tale  of  the  Good  Old  Time. 
By  William  Dunlap." 

"New  York  Mirror,"  November  12,  1836,  Vol. 
XIV,  p.  157. 

15  "Tom  Bell  and  the  Princess  Susannah  Caro 
lina  Matilda.     By  William  Dunlap." 

"New   York   Mirror,"   January   7,    1837,   Vol. 

XIV,  p.  217. 

1 6  "The  Night  Jumpers;  or,  The  Yankee  Tom 
and  Jerry.    By  William  Dunlap." 

"New  York  Mirror,"  July  I,   1837,  Vol.  XV, 
p.  2. 

17  "The  Dancing  Bear.    Imitated  from  the  Ger 
man  of  Gellert,  by  William  Dunlap,  August, 

I799-" 

"New  York  Mirror,"  July  8,  1837,  Vol.  XV, 
p.  10. 

18  "Mr.  Catlin's  Lectures.    By  William  Dunlap." 

"New  York  Mirror,"   October   14,   1837,  Vol. 

XV,  p.  126. 

19  "The  Vanity  of  Human  Wishes.    By  William 
Dunlap." 

"New  York  Mirror,"  December  30,  1837,  Vol. 
XV,  p.  211. 


partial  list  of 


THE  following  catalogue  is  far  from  complete. 
Two  facts  have  tended  to  scatter  Dunlap's  pictures 
widely,  and  to  render  them  inaccessible  :  First,  he 
practised  his  vocation  all  the  way  from  Norfolk  to 
Montreal.  Second,  the  contents  of  his  studio  were 
sold  at  auction  shortly  after  his  death.  Though 
the  majority  of  his  paintings  are  probably  still  in 
existence,  it  is  now  impossible  to  locate  many  of 
them. 

a.  Miniatures 

1  Armitt  Brown. 

Owned  by  Mrs.  Fred  Brown,  Philadelphia. 

2  Charles  Brockden  Brown. 

Owned  by  the  Brown  family,  Philadelphia. 

3  Charles  Brockden  Brown. 

Owned  by  Mr.  Herbert  Lee  Pratt,  New  York 
City. 

4  Charles  Brockden  Brown. 

In  the  Lucy  Wharton  Drexel  Collection,  Pen- 
rynn,  Penn. 

5  Mrs.  Charles  Brockden  Brown. 

In  the  Lucy  Wharton  Drexel  Collection,  Pen- 
rynn,  Penn. 

6-7    Two  miniatures  of  George  Frederick  Cooke. 

Owned  by  The  Players,  New  York  City. 

299 


300  IDiHiam  2Dunlap 

8  Thomas    Abthorpe    Cooper.      (Copied    from 
Jarvis's  oil  portrait.) 

Owned  by  The  Players,  New  York  City. 

9  Margaret  Dunlap. 

Owned  by  the  Johnson  family,  Staten  Island. 

10-11    Two  miniatures  of  William  Dunlap. 

Owned  by  Mrs.  W.  H.  Carmalt,  New  Haven, 
Conn. 

12  Mrs.  William  Dunlap. 

Owned  by  Mrs.  W.  H.  Carmalt,  New  Haven, 
Conn. 

13  Timothy  Dwight.    (By  Dunlap?) 

Owned  by  Mrs.  W.  H.  Carmalt,  New  Haven, 
Conn. 

14  President  Tyler. 

Owned  by  Mr.  Albert  Rosenthal,  Philadelphia. 

15  Mrs.  Wignell. 

Owned  by  Prof.  Theodore  S.  Woolsey,  New 
Haven,  Conn. 

1 6  Col.  Hugh  Williamson. 

Present    location   unknown. 

17  Francis  Bayard  Winthrop. 

Owned  by  the  Johnson  family,  Staten  Island. 

1 8  Mrs.  Benjamin  Woolsey,  ist.    (Copied  from 
an  oil  portrait  by  an  unknown  artist.) 

Owned  by  Mrs.  W.  H.  Carmalt,  New  Haven, 
Conn.  (?) 

19  Mrs.  Benjamin  Woolsey,  2nd. 

Owned  by  Mr.  William  S.  Johnson,  Mamaro- 
neck,  New  York. 


30 l 

20  Capt.  John  Taylor  Woolsey.    (By  Dunlap ?) 

Owned  by  Mrs.  W.  H.  Carmalt,  New  Haven, 
Conn. 

21  William  Walton  Woolsey. 

Owned  by  Mr.  William  S.  Johnson,  Mamaro- 
neck,  New  York. 

22-25    Four  miniatures  of  unknown  persons. 

Owned  by  Mr.  Albert  Rosenthal,  Philadelphia. 


b.  Oil  Portraits 

1  Anthony  Bleecker. 

Owned  by  the  Society  Library,  New  York  City. 

2  Anthony  Bleecker. 

Owned  by  Mrs.  Fannie  W.  Neilson,  Newburgh, 
New  York. 

3  De  Witt  Clinton. 

Owned  by  the  Brook  Club,  New  York  City. 

4  John  Adams  Conant. 

Owned  by  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art, 
New  York  City. 

5  Mrs.  John  Adams  Conant. 

Owned  by  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art, 
New  York  City. 

6  Mrs.  Thomas  A.  Cooper. 

Owned    by    the    Cleveland    Museum    of    Art, 
Cleveland,   Ohio. 

7  Margaret  Dunlap. 

Owned  by  Mrs.  W.  H.  Carmalt,  New  Haven, 
Conn. 


302  iBfliiam  SDunlap 

8    The  Artist  showing  a  picture  from  "Hamlet" 
to  his  parents. 

Owned  by  the  New  York  Historical   Society, 
New  York  City. 

9-10    Two  small  portraits  of  Mrs.  William  Dun- 
lap. 

Owned  by  relatives  of  the  family. 

11  Portrait  of  a  Lady. 

Owned  by  the  Worcester  Art  Museum,  Worces 
ter,  Mass. 

12  Rev.  Enoch  M.  Low. 

Present   location  unknown. 

13  Henry  Seymour. 

Owned  by  the  Misses  Miller,  Utica,  New  York. 

14  Mrs.  Henry  Seymour. 

Owned  by  Mrs.  Walter  G.  Oakman,  Islip,  Long 
Island. 

15  Robert  Snow. 

Owned  by  the  Museum  of  the  Brooklyn  Insti 
tute  of  Arts  and  Sciences. 

1 6  George  Spalding. 

Owned  by  the  Worcester  Art  Museum,  Worces 
ter,  Mass. 

17  A  group  of  six  figures  from  "The  Spy,"  in 
cluding  Harvey  Birch. 

Owned  by  Mr.  Albert  Rosenthal,  Philadelphia. 

1 8  Robert  Taylor. 

At  Rosewell,  Whitemarsh,  Virginia. 

19  Major  David  Van  Horn. 

Owned   by   A.    Van    Horn    Stuyvesant,    New 
York  City. 

20  Capt.  Watson. 

Owned   by  the   Ehrich   Galleries,   New   York 
City. 


"Abaellino,"  72,  Ssn,  87, 

239-40 

"Aballino  der  Grosse  Ban 
dit,"  239    , 
"Abbe  de  1'Epee,"  73,  85n, 

197-8 
Adams,  John  and  Samuel, 

132 

Addison,  Joseph,  89,  130 
"Adelaide  of  Wulfingen," 

236 

"Adulateur,  The,"  132 
/Eschylus,  145 
"Africans,  The,"  179,  180 
"Agamemnon,"  145 
Albany,  N.  Y.,  72,  83 
Allen,  Paul,  247 
Allston,  Washington,  96,  97, 

126,  259,  264 
American  Academy  of  Fine 

Arts,  98,  icon,  104-6,  no, 

260,  271 
American  Company,  35,  36, 

39,  40,  44,  196 
"American  Poems,  Selected 

and  Original,"  25 
Amherst,  Gen.  Jeffrey,  3 
"Andre,"  58,  62,  8sn,  164-7, 

171,  172,  173,  184,  188 
Andre,  Major  John,  36, 163- 

6,  171,  I72n,  267 
"Androborus,"  129 
Annapolis,  Md.,  34 
"Anti-Jacobin,  The,"  57 
"Arabian  Nights,  The,"  9 
"Archers,    The,"    28,    155-7, 

189,   191.     (See  "William 

Tell") 


Arnold,   Benedict,   163,   164, 

171,  267 
"Articles  of  Agreement  be 

tween    Hallam,    Hodgkin- 

son,  and  Dunlap,"  44-7 
Aston,  Tony,  29 
"As  You  Like  It,"  59 
"Attack  on  the  Louvre, 

The,"  in 

Babo,  J.  M.,  240 
Baltimore,  Md.,  83 
Bannister,  Charles,  12; 

John,  12,  78 
Barbary  States,  War  with, 

150 
Barker,  J.  N.,  187,  i88n, 

i8gn,  igon,  igin 
Barlow,  Joel,  25,  83 
Barton,  Andrew,  131 
Bartow,  Thomas,  5 
Bath  Theatre,  38 
"Battle  of  Brooklyn,  The," 

133 
"Battle  of  Bunker's-Hill, 

The,"  133,  145 
"Battle  of  Hexham,  The," 

162,  163 
"Battle  of  New  Orleans, 

The,"  95,  174,  188 
Beach,  L.,  i88n,  iSgn 
"Bearing  of  the  Cross,  The," 

103,  in 
"Beaux'  Stratagem,  The,"  8, 

30,  35,  129 
"Beggar's  Opera,  The,"  132, 


Betty,  Master,  88 


303 


304 


Bible,  The,  100 

Black  Friars,  16 

Bleecker,  Anthony,  17,  i8n, 

103 
"Blind  Boy,  The,"  74,  8sn, 

230 

"Blue  Beard,"  179,  180 
Boaden,  James,  153,  199 
Bonaparte,  Jerome,  173 
Bonaparte,  Napoleon,  174, 

250 
"Bonaparte  in  England,"  78, 

8sn,  113,  173-4,  179 
"Bon  Ton,"  140 
Boston,  23,  30,  36,  37,  55, 

58,  72,  83,  93,  102,  235 
Boswell,  James,  121,  273 
Bouilly,  Jean,  197,  198 
Bowery  Theatre,  106-7,  109, 

113,  204 
Brackenridge,  H.  H.,  133, 

186 

Breck,  Charles,  i88n 
Brevoort,  Henry,  103 
Brown,  C.  B.,  24,  28,  48,  51, 

57,  63,69,  90,  100,  1 10,  153, 

214,  247-9,  270,  281 
"Brown,  Life  of,"  95,  247-9 
Brown,  Elijah,  95 
Brown,  T.  A.,  31 
Brown,  William,  iSgn 
Brown  University,  2i7n 
Bryant,  W.  C.,  103,  109,  113, 

124,  125 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  94 
Bulwer-Lytton,  Edward,  121 
"Bunker  Hill,"  173 
Burgoyne,  Gen.  John,  36 
Burk,  John,  173,  186,  i89n, 

I9on 

Caigniez,  L.  C.,  198,  199,  201 
"Caleb  Williams,"  161 
"Calvary,"  103,  106,  108,  in 


"Careless  Husband,  The," 

134 

"Carmelite,  The,"  154 
Carr,  Benjamin,  28 
"Castle  of  Andalusia,  The," 

162,  163 
"Castle  of  Otranto,  The," 

154 

"Castle  Spectre,  The,"  154 
"Cato,"  30,  89,  129,  130 
Chapel  Street  Theatre,  New 

York,  34 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  29,  30,  72, 

236 

Cheetham,  James,  245 
"Christ  Rejected,"  101-2, 

108,  in 

Cibber,  Colley,  134,  251 
Clarke,  F.  L.,  250 
"Clementine  et  Desormes," 

197 

Clinch,  C.  P.,  i89n,  I9in 
Clinton,  De  Witt,  124 
Clinton,  George,  83 
Cobb,  James,  203 
Cockings,  George,  131 
Cole,  Thomas,  105,  126 
Colman,         George,         the 

Younger,    162,    179,    180, 

i  Son,  207 
"Cololoo,"  25 

"Columbian  Muse,  The,"  25 
Columbia  University,  i8n 
"Commentaries  on  Ameri 
can  Law,"  i8n 
Conant,  J.  A.,  124 
Condorcet,  Marquis  de,  55 
Congreve,  William,  34 
"Conquest  of  Canada,"  131 
"Conscious  Lovers,  The," 

135 
"Contrast,  The,"  14,  16,  20, 

133,  137,  187,  236 
Cooke,  G.  F.,  88-90,  92,  245- 


305 


246,  252,  275,  277,  27711, 
278, 281 

"Cooke,  Memoirs  of,"  92-3, 

234,  244-7,  249,  278 
Cooper,  J.  R,  26,  103,  112, 

120,   121,  255,  258 

Cooper,  T.  A.,  61,  62,  65,  66, 
69,  73,  74,  77,  79,  84,  87, 
88,  90,  91,  118,  175,  238,  278 

Cooper,  Mrs.  T.  A.,  124 

Copley,  J.  S.,  n,  96,  126 

"Corsicans,  The,"  226 

Cotton,  John,  244 

"Count  Benyowski,"  66,  8sn, 
215,  235,  236 

"Count  of  Burgundy,  The," 
221 

"Count  of  Narbonne,  The," 

154 
Covent  Garden  Theatre,  48, 

50,  88,  162,  207 
"Critic,  The,"  12 
Croswell,  Joseph,  i89n 
Cruger's  Wharf  Theatre, 

New  York,  33 
Cruikshank,  George,  ii2n 
Cumberland,  Richard,  135, 

154,  i87n 

"Curfew,  The,"  is8n 
Custis,  G.  W.  P.,  18911 

"Darby's   Return,"   21,   8sn, 

142-3,  150,  179,  188,  189 
"Death  of  Montgomery, 

The,"  133,  145 
"Death  on  the  Pale  Horse," 

103,  108,  in 

Decatur,  Capt.  Stephen,  151 
Defoe,  Daniel,  121 
Dekker,  Thomas,  167,  168, 

169,  282 

D'Elville,  Rinaldo,  I90n 
Dennie,  Joseph,  270 
"Deserteur,  Le,"  196 


Diary,  Dunlap  s,  53,  54,  57, 
58,  6m,  90,  98,  117,  118, 
1 20,  272,  278 

Dibdin,  Thomas,  194,  I96n, 
207,  220,  228 

Diorama,  The,  107-8,  176 

"Disappointment,  The,"  131, 

134 

"Distressed  Mother,  The," 
194 

Doddridge,  Joseph,  igin 

"Don  Carlos,"  67,  238 

"Don  Juan,"  100 

"Douglas,"  88,  146 

Douglass,  David,  33,  34,  36 

Drama  League  of  America, 
62n 

"Dramatic  Works  of  Wil 
liam  Dunlap,  The,"  85 

Drone  Club,  ign 

Drury  Lane  Theatre,  48, 
179,207    , 

Ducange,  Victor,  204 

Dunlap,  Hester,  24 

Dunlap,  John  A.,  24,  53-4, 
56,  92,  ii8n,  127,  252,  267, 
272 

Dunlap,  Margaret,  24,  53-4, 
119,  121 

Dunlap,  Samuel,  3,  4,  5,  7, 
11,  13,  22,  23 

Dunlap,  Mrs.  Samuel,  4,  98n. 
(See  Margaret  Sargeant) 

Dunlap,  William,  parentage 
and  birth,  3-4;  education, 
4-8;  during  the  Revolu 
tion,  6-9 ;  loss  of  eye,  8-9 ; 
first  attempts  at  drama 
and  art,  9-10 ;  residence  in 
England,  11-14;  early 
plays,  15-28 ;  marriage, 
16-17;  mercantile  pur 
suits,  22-3 ;  director  of 
New  York  theatre,  28-9, 


306 


43-81 ;  playwriting  and 
translating,  49-79;  bank 
ruptcy,  79-^80;  estimate  of 
his  ability  as  a  director, 
80-1 ;  itinerant  painting, 
82-3 ;  second  connection 
with  the  theatre,  84-91 ; 
literary  ventures,  92-5 ; 
state  office,  94-5;  main 
period  of  professional 
painting,  95-121 ;  found 
ing  of  the  National  Acad 
emy,  104-6;  illness  and 
operation,  118-9;  list  of 
his  contributions  to  ex 
hibitions  of  the  National 
Academy,  I22n ;  estimate 
of  his  ability  as  a  painter, 
94,  123-5;  historical  writ 
ing,  95,  112,  II7-9,  I2I-2, 

126;  death,  127;  estimate 
of  his  character,  127-8; 
see  "Contents"  for  treat 
ment  of  his  works;  gen 
eral  estimate  of  his 
achievements,  280-3 

Dunlap,  Mrs.  William,  54, 
101,  119,  127.  (See  Eliza 
beth  Woolsey) 

Durand,  A.  B.,  105,  126 

Button,  Thomas,  224 

Duyckinck,  Evert,  21 

Dwight,  Timothy,  17,  58 

Edgeworth,  Maria,  121 
"Edle  Luge,  Die,"  226 
"Edwin  and  Angelina,"  163, 

190 

"Ella,"  26 

Ellison,  James,  I5in 
Ellison,  R.  W.,  239 

Epee,  Charles-Michel,  Abbe 

de  1',  197 
"Epigramm,  Das,"  230 


"Falsche  Scham,"  217 
"False  Shame,"  68,  8511,  217, 

235 

Farquhar,  George,  43 
"Fatal  Deception,  The,"  25, 

143.  (See  "Leicester") 
"Father,  The,"  19-20,  86, 

137-42,  143,  170,  183,  187. 

(See  "The  Father  of  an 

Only  Child") 
"Father  of  an  Only  Child, 

The,"  85n,  141,  253.     (See 

"The  Father") 
Fawcett,  J.,  231 
Federal  Constitution,  21,  267 
"Federalist,  The,"  i8n 
Federalist  Party,  142 
"Femme  a  Deux  Maris,  La," 

202 
"Ferdinand  Count  Fathom," 

100 

"Fiesco,"  238 
Fitch,  Clyde,  i64n 
Fitzball,  Edward,  106,  107 
"Flying  Dutchman,  The," 

106,  io7n 
"Fontainville  Abbey,"  26-7, 

8sn,  151-5,  158,  190,  191 
"Fontainville  Forest,"  153 
"Force  of  Calumny,  The," 

70,  85n,  220-1 
Forrest,  Edwin,  113,  257n 
Forrest,  Col.  Thomas,  13111 
"Forty  and  Twenty,"  8sn, 

181 
Francis,  Dr.  J.  W.,  119,  125, 

247,  278 
"Fraternal      Discord,"      71, 

85n,    87,    228-9,    234,    236, 

242 
"Freedom  of  the  Seas, 

The,"  oi 

French  Revolution,  142,  206 
Freneau,  Philip,  25 


307 


Friendly  Club,  17-19,  24 
Fulton,  Robert,  258 

Gallatin,  Albert,  84 
"Gambler's  Fate,  The,"  107, 

204 

"Gamester,  The,"  204 
Garrick,  David,  140 
Geisweiler,  Maria,  226 
Genest,  John,  140,  141,  223 
"George  Barnwell,"  30,  129 
"German  Theatre,  The,"  69, 

70 

Gessner,  Solomon,  27 
Gibbon,  Edward,  121 
"Glory  of  Columbia,  The," 

74,   85n,    171-3,    177,    179, 

184,  188.  189 
Godfrey,  Thomas,  129,  130, 

186 
Godwin,  William,  57,  61, 

161,  163,  272 
Goldsmith,  Oliver,  15 
"Good  Neighbor,  The,"  74, 

85n,  87,  241 

Goubaux,  Prosper,  204 
"Graf  von  Burgund,  Der," 

221 

Grice,  C.  E.,  95n,  1890 
Gunning,  Elizabeth,  202,  203 

Hallam  Company,  32,  129, 

252 

Hallam,  Lewis,  ist,  32-3 
Hallam,   Lewis,   2d,    15,    19, 

29,    36,    38,    39,   43,    44-7, 

50-1,  53,  63,  63n,  252 
Hallam,  Mrs.  Lewis,  43,  50, 

5i,  63n 

Hallam,  William,  32 
Halleck,  Fitzgreene,  103, 

H3 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  i8n 
"Hamlet,"  37,  61 


Hancock,  John,  132 
"Happy  Family,  The,"  227 
Hartford,  Conn.,  47,  55,  250 
Harwood,  J.  E.,  78 
Hatton,  Ann,  i8gn 
Hawkins,  Micah,  i9on 
Hawks,  F.  L.,  265,  266 
Haymarket  Theatre,  48,  180 
"Helvetic  Liberty,"  156 
Henderson,  John,  12 
Henkels,  S.  V.,  94 
Henry,  John,  15,  19,  35,  36, 

38,  194,  196 

Henry,  Mrs.  John,  15,  19 
Hewetson,  W.  B.,  23on 
Hewit,  James,  72 
"Highland  Reel,  The,"  150 
Hill,  Aaron,  194 
Hillhouse,  J.  A.,  19011,  I9in 
"Historic  Muse,  The,"  I23n 
"History    of    the   American 
Theatre,"    109,    112,    137, 
159,  167,  179,  180,  216,  221, 
226,  233,  251-7,  261,  278 
"History  of  the  New  Neth 
erlands,  Province  of  New 
York,  and  State  of  New 
York,"  125,  126,  266-9 
"History  of  New  York,  for 

Schools,"  122,  265-6 
"History    of    the    Rise    and 
Progress   of  the  Arts   of 
Design     in     the     United 
States,"  117,  118,  119,  122, 

257-64 

Hodgkinson,  John,  25,  26, 
28,  29,  38,  39,  4i,  43,  44-7, 
49,  50-1,  52,  53,  55,  56,  58, 
59,  62,  63,  68,  69,  70,  71,  72, 
74,  75,  77-8,  159,  190 

Hodgkinson,  Mrs.  John,  26, 
38 

Holcroft,  Thomas,  54,  57, 

157,   198,  201,  202,  207 


3o8 


Home,  John,  145 

"Honest  Whore,  The,"  167, 

168,  170 

Hosack,  David,  116,  117 
Hudson,  Henry,  266,  267 
Hugo,  Victor,  121 
Hull,  Capt.  Isaac,  175 
Hume,  David,  54 
"Humphrey  Clinker,"  100 
Humphreys,  David,   i88n, 

194 

Hunter,  Gov.  Robert,  129 
Hutton,  Joseph,  i88n,  igon 

Iffland,  A.  W.,  74,  206,  241 
Inchbald,  Mrs.  Elizabeth, 

213,  214 
"Indians  in  England,"  67, 

8sn,  215 

Ingersoll,  C.  J.,  igon 
Ingham,  Charles,  105,  122, 

126 

Inman,  Henry,  105,  126 
"Inquirer,  The,"  57 
loor,  William,  iSgn 
Ireland,  J.  N.,  20,  196,  221, 

226,  254 
"Irene,"  130 
Irving,  Peter,  92,  93 
Irving,  Washington,  75,  76, 

92,  1 20,  258 
Isham,  Samuel,  264 
"Is  It  a  Lie?",  i82n 
"Italian  Father,  The,"  67, 

8$n,  87,  167-70,  184,  187 
"Ivanhoe,"  100 

Jarvis,  J.  W.,  126,  259 
Jefferson,  Joseph,  ist,  48,  66, 

/i 

Jefferson,  Joseph,  3d,  48n 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  83 
Jephson,  Robert,  154 
"Jerome  Pointu,"  195 


Johnson,  Mr.  and  Mrs. 

John,  48 
Johnson,  Samuel,  130, 

273-4 
Johnson,  William,  17,  i8n, 

24,63 
John   Street  Theatre,    New 

York,  28,   35,  36,  38,  48, 

50,  53,  56,  58,  59 
Jones,  J.,  I5in 
Jordan,  Mrs.  Dorothea,  12 
Judah,  Moses,  23,  56 
Judah,  S.  B.  H.,  i&gn,  igon, 

igin 
"Jugement  de  Salomon,  Le," 

198,  20 1 
"Julius  Caesar,"  130 

"Kabale  und  Liebe,"  206 

Kelly,  Hugh,  134 

Kemble,  Charles  and  Fanny, 

H3 

Kemble,  J.  P.,  12,  88 

Kent,  James,  17,  i8n,  83 

"Kind  der  Liebe,  Das,"  207 

"King  John,"  61 

King's  College,  8 

Kip  Street  Theatre,  New 
York,  31 

"Knight  of  Guadalquiver, 
The,"  72,  85n,  189 

"Knight's  Adventure,  The," 
85n,  159,  163,  190,  191. 
(See  "The  Man  of  Forti 
tude") 

Kotzebue,  A.  F.  F.  von,  65, 
66,  67,  68,  69,  70,  71,  74, 
88,  108,  189,  198,  205-37, 
252;  plays  on  the  London 
stage,  208-9;  plays  on  the 
New  York  stage,  231-2 

"Ladies  of  Castile,  The," 
136,  145 


309 


Lamb,  Charles,  282 
"La  Perouse,"  8511,  231 
Lathy,  T.  P.,  i88n 
Lawrence,  James,  222 
Lee,  Nathaniel,  130 
"Leicester,"  8511,  143-9,  154. 
183,  191.    (See  "The  Fatal 
Deception") 
Leslie,  C.  R.,  271 
Lessing,  G.  E.,  205,  206 
"Letters  of  Jonathan  Old- 
style,  Gent.,"  75-6 
Lewis,  M.  G.,  154,  207,  224, 

239 
"Lewis  of  Monte  Blanco," 

78,  85n,  179 

Lexington,  Battle  of,  175 
"Liberal  Opinions,"  74 
Lillo,  George,  43,  206 
Lindsley,  A.  B.,  i88n 
London,  n,  92,  95,  112 
Longworth,  David,  86,  87,  92 
"Lovers'  Vows,"  66,  85n,  87, 

207,  208,  213-15,  234 
Low,  Samuel,  136 
Ludger,  C.,  228 
Lunch  Club,  103 

"Macbeth,"  144,  145 
McKee,  Thomas,  216,  221, 

226,  227,  238 
McLean,  Dr.,  119,  278 
MacNally,  Leonard,  162 
Madison,  Mrs.  James,  83 
Malbone,  Edward,  82,  83 
Manfredi,  Signer,  77 
"Man    of    Fortitude,    The," 
52,    159-63-      (See    "The 
Knight's  Adventure") 
Manumission  Society,  23 
Markoe,  Peter,  133,  i89n 
Marriott,  Mrs.,  iSgn 
Marsollier,  Joseph,  203 
Masons,  16 


"Massachusetts  Magazine, 

The,"  269 
Mather,  Cotton  and  Samuel, 

245 
Matthews,  Brander,  164, 

166,  184 

Melmoth,  Mrs.,  48 
"Memoirs      of      a      Water 

Drinker,"  117,  276-9.    (See 

"Thirty  Years  Ago") 
"Menschenhass  und  Reue," 

205,  207,  211 
"Merchant  of  Venice,  The," 

32 

Mercier,  L.  S.,  196,  I96n 
Merry,  Mrs.  Robert,  73,  86. 

(See  Mrs.  Thomas  Wig- 

nell) 
"Merry  Gardener,  The," 

73,  85n 

Michaux,  Dr.  Pierre,  49,  50 
Miller,  Edward,  271;  Sam 
uel,  17,  i8n 

Milne's  "All  in  a  Bustle,"  59 
"Minna  von  Barnhelm,"  205, 

206 

Minshull,  John,  i88n,  i89n 
"Miser's  Wedding,  The,"  25 
"Miss  Sara  Sampson,"  205, 

206 
Mitchill,   S.   L.,    12,    16,    17, 

i8n,  51,  56,  83,  271 
"Modest  Soldier,  The,"  15, 

137 

Moliere,  J.  B.  P.  de,  121 
Moncrieff,  William,  107 
"Monthly  Magazine,  and 

American    Review,   The," 

214,  220,  221,  223,  225,  228, 

238,  270 
"Monthly  Recorder,  The," 

93,  270-2 

Montreal,  Canada,  100,  101 
Monvel,  Boutet  de,  197 


3io 


Moore,  Edward,  204 
Morris,  G.  P.,  113,  115,  125 
Morse,  Jedidiah,  58 
Morse,  S.  F.  B.,  96,  97,  103, 

105,  in,  126,  259 
Murdock,  J.,  i88n 
"Mysterious  Monk,  The," 

49,     157.       (See     "Ribbe- 

mont") 

Napoleon.    (See  Bonaparte) 

Napoleonic  Wars,  History 
of,  95,  250-1,  268 

"Narrative  of  the  Events 
which  followed  Bona 
parte's  Campaign  in  Rus 
sia,"  250 

Nassau  Street  Theatre,  New 
York,  32 

National  Academy  of  De 
sign,  105-6,  108,  109,  no, 
in,  117,  121,  122,  i22n, 
260,  263 

"National  Portrait  Gallery, 
The,"  117,  249n,  259n 

"Natural  Daughter,  The," 
66,  187 

"Natural  Son,  The,"  135, 
i87n,  214 

Neal,  John,  I9on 

"Negersklaven,  Die,"  207 

Neuman,  Henry,  216,  217 

Newport,  R.  I.,  34 

New  Theatre,  New  York, 
53,  59-6o,  63,  64-5.  (See 
Park  Theatre) 

New  York  City,  6,  7,  30,  31, 
32,  36,  39,  61,  81,  91,  97, 
104 

New  York  Drawing  Asso 
ciation,  105 

New  York  Historical  So 
ciety,  15,  i8n 

"New  York  Magazine, 
The,"  27,  269,  272 


"New  York  Mirror,  The," 

128,  185,  273,  275 
Niagara  Falls,  95 
"Nina,"  79n,  S5n,  203-4 
Noah,  M.  M.,  I5in,  18911, 

I9in 
Norfolk,  Va.,  98,  100,  101, 

1 02 
Norton,  John,  244,  245 

O'Keeffe,  John,  142,  150, 

162 

"Opfertod,  Der,"  216 
"Orphan,  The,"  30,  37 
Otis,  James,  132 
Otway,  Thomas,  34,  43,  211 
Oxford  University,  12,  13, 

278 

Paine,  R.  T.,  278 
Paine,  Thomas,  245 
Papendick,  George,  211 
Park   Theatre,    New    York, 
64-5,  69,  73,  78,  79,  81,  84, 
87,   88,   89,   91,    106,    107, 
113,  181,  204,  217,  223,  224, 
226,    231,    238,    276,    278. 
(See  New  Theatre) 
"Patrick  in  Prussia,"  142 
"Patriot  Chief,  The,"  133, 

145 

Paulding,  J.  K.,  113 
Payne,  J.   H.,  88,  93,  I5in, 

187,  i88n,  igon,  I9in,  243 
Peale,  Rembrandt,  105 
Pelisier,  Victor,  66 
Pepys,  Samuel,  121 
Perth  Amboy,  3,  4,  6,  25,  48, 

53,  56,  57,  63,  68,  80,  84,  89, 

91,  127 
"Peter  the  Great,"  74,  85n, 

87,  240-1 
Philadelphia,  23,  30,  33,  36, 

37,  38,  39,  5i,  72,  83,  85,  89, 

90,  95,  102,  235 


Philips,  Ambrose,  194 
Philological  Society,  16,  17 
"Pioneers,  The,"  177 
Pixerecourt,  Guilbert  de, 

200,  202 
"Pizarro,"  70,  8sn,  207,  208, 

224-5,  234,  236 
Plumptre,  Anne,  213,  214, 

221,  222,  223,  224,  231 
"Political  Justice,"  57 
"Politician  Outwitted,  The," 

136 

"Ponteach,"  130,  131 
"Poor  Soldier,  The,"  142 
Porter,  Sir  Robert  K.,  250 
Porter,  Stephen,  213 
"Port  Folio,  The,"  270 
"Portrait  of  a  Lady,"  124, 

125 

Post,  Dr.  Wright,  49 
Price,  Stephen,  87,  88,  89 
"Prince  of  Parthia,  The," 

129-30,  133,  145 
Princeton  University,  i8n 
"Proverb,  The,"  78,  850,  174 

Quebec,   100;   Battle  of,  3; 

Battle-field  of,  101,  278 
Quincy,  Josiah,  58 

Radcliffe,  Mrs.  Ann,  153, 

154,  161 
"Rauber,  Die,"  161,  162,  163, 

205 

"Recruiting  Officer,  The,"  30 
Reinagle,  A.,  38,  39,  55,  61 
Render,  Wilhelm,  215 
"Retrospect,  The,"  73 
Revolutionary  War,  6-9,  36, 
132,  163,  175,  260,  266,  267 
Reynolds,  Sir  Joshua,  101, 

126 

"Ribbemont;  or,  The  Feu 
dal  Baron,"  85n,  157-9, 
190,  191.  (See  "The  Mys 
terious  Monk") 


"Richard  III,"  37,  89,  129 
"Rinaldo  Rinaldini,"  180-1, 

i9on 

Rittenhouse,  David,  205 
"Robbers,  The,"  162,  237, 

239 

"Robbery,  The,"  69,  8sn,  197 
"Robespierre,"  181 
Robin,  Augustus,  ion 
Robineau,  A.  L.  B.,  195 
"Robin  Hood,"  162,  163 
Rogers,  Major  Robert,  131 
"Romance  of  the  Forest, 

The,"  153,  154 
"Romeo  and  Juliet,"  77,  129, 

130 

Rousseau,  J.  J.,  99 
Rowe,  Nicholas,  43,  211 
Rowson,      Mrs.      Susannah, 

150,   155,   186,   i88n,  iSgn, 

I9in 
Rubens,  P.  P.,  13,  101 

"Sack  of  Rome,  The,"  136, 

145 

St.  Pierre,  Charles,  272,  273 
Sargeant,    Margaret,    3,    4. 

(See   Mrs.   Samuel   Dun- 
lap) 
Schiller,   Friedrich,  67,   161, 

163,  205,  206,  236,  237-8, 

243,  252 

Schinck,  A.,  211 
"School  for  Lovers,"  135 
"School  for  Scandal,"  12,  64 
"School  for  Soldiers,"  67, 

72,  8sn,  194,  196 
"School  for  Wives,"  134 
Scott,  Walter,  255 
Sedaine,  M.  J.,  i96n 
Seilhamer,  G.  O.,  52,  53,  254, 

255-6 
"Self-immolation,"  216-7, 

236 


3I2 


Sewall,  Chief  Justice  Sam 

uel,  30 

Seward,  Honora,  165 
Shakespeare,  William,  6,  34, 

4i,  43,  S3,  88,  89,  130,  144, 

145,  152,  159,  205,  210,  211, 

282 

Shelley,  Mrs.  Mary,  121 
"Shelty's  Travels,"  25,  150-1 
Sheridan,  R.  B.,  184,  207, 

211,  224,  225 
"She  Stoops  to  Conquer," 

15,  37 

Siddons,  Mrs.  Sarah,  12 
"Silberne  Hochzeit,  Die," 

227 

Sketch  Club,  109 
"Slaves  in  Algiers,"  150,  155 
Smith,  Charles,  198,  217,  219, 

220,  221,  222,  224,  227,  235  J 

list    of    his    translations, 


Smith,  E.  H.,  17,  i8n,  24,  25, 

28,  51,  59,  63,   163,   i8gn, 

190 

Smith,  J.  S.,  I5in 
Society  Library,  New  York, 

223,  227 
"Soldier  of  '76,  The,"  72, 

8sn,  188 

Solee,  John,  55,  56 
Sonneck,  O.  G.,  29,  157 
"Sophonisba,"  130 
South  Street  Theatre,  Phila 

delphia,  I72n 

Spalding,  George,  124,  125 
"Spanier  in  Peru,  Die,"  207 
Steele,  Richard,  135 
Sterne,  Laurence,  139,  170 
"Sterne's  Maria,"  66,  85n, 

170-1,  187,  189 
Stokes,  J.,  I90n 
"Stranger,  The,"  65,  70,  8511, 

207,  208,  210,  211-13,  214, 

226,  234,  236,  239 


"Stranger's  Birthday,  The/' 

70,  8sn,  226 
"Strelizen,  Die,"  240-1 
Stuart,  Gilbert,  83,  94,  96, 

97,  125,  126,  259,  264 
Sully,  Thomas,  96,  98,  125, 

126,  259,  264 


Talbot,  Charles, 

"Tale  of  Mystery,  A,"  201, 

202 

Tell,  William,  28,  155-6 
"Tell  Truth  and  Shame  the 

Devil,"  50,  8sn,  194-5 
"Temple  of  Independence, 

The,"  66,  188 
Theatre  Francois,  197 
"Theodosius,"  130 
"Thirty    Years    Ago,"    121, 

276-9.    (See  "Memoirs  of 

a  Water  Drinker") 
"Thirty  Years  ;  or,  The  Life 

of  a  Gamester,"  107,  204 
Thomas,  Isaiah,  25in 
Thompson,  Benjamin,  198, 

211,  222,  227,  231 
Thomson,  Alexander,  216 
Thomson,  James,  130 
Tisdale,  E.,  259 
Tobin,  John,  I58n 
"Tom  Jones,"  100 
Tompkins,  Gov.  Daniel,  278 
"Trente  Ans  ou  la  Vie  d'un 

Joueur,"  204 
"Trip  to  Niagara,  A,"  107-8, 

176-9,  183,  188 
"Tristram  Shandy,"  170 
Trumbull,  John,  96,  98,  104, 

105,  126,  260-1,  263,  264 
Turnbull,  J.  D.,  I9on 
Turrell,  Ebenezer,  245 
Twaits,  William,  278 
"Twelfth  Night,"  169 
Tyler,  Royall,  15.  16,  133-6, 

178,  186,  187,  236 


313 


Tytler,  A.  R,  162 

Vanderlyn,  John,  97,  263 
Van  Home,  John,  9,  10,  II 
"Venice  Preserved,"  113 
"Verlaumder,  Die,"  220 
Verplanck,  Gulian,  125 
"Versphnung,  Die,"  228 
"Virgin  of  the  Sun,  The," 

70,  85n,  222-4 
"Voice  of  Nature,  The,"  74, 

8sn,  87,  198-202 
Voltaire,  F.  M.  A.  de,  58 

Walpole,  Horace,  121,  154 
War  of  1812,  91,  174,  178 
Warren,  Gen.  Joseph,  132 
Warren,  Mrs.  Mercy,  132, 

136,  186 

Washington,  D.  C,  83,  103 
Washington,  George,  10,  n, 

18,  21,  65,  69,  133,  165,  172, 

245,  266,  279 
Washington,  Mrs.  Martha, 

10 

Watson,  John,  258 
Watterson,  George,  i88n 
Webster,  Noah,  16 
Wegelin,  Oscar,  i82n,  216, 

221,  226 

Weir,  R.  W.,  126 
Wellington,  Duke  of,  250 
Wells,  John,  17,  i8n 
Weems,  M.  L.,  245 
West,  Benjamin,  n,  12,  14, 

96,  97,  101,  102,  103,  123, 

126,  258,  259,  260,  264,  282 
West,  Raphael,  12,  258 
Westray,  Ellen,  68 
"Where  Is  He?",  73,  8sn 
White,  J.  B.,  i89n,  I9on 
White,  W.  C.,  i88n 
Whitehead,  William,  135 


"Widow  of  Malabar,  The," 

194 
"Wife    of    Two    Husbands, 

The,"    78,    8sn,    87,    179, 

202-3 
"Wife  with  Two  Husbands, 

The,"  202 
Wignell,  Thomas,  19,  21,  38, 

39,  55,  61,  142 
Wignell,  Mrs.  Thomas,  85. 

(See  Mrs.  Merry) 
"Wildfang,  Der,"  218,  219 
"Wild   Goose  Chace,  The," 

69,  70,  85n,  178,  189,  218- 

20,  235,  242 

Wilkens,  F.  H.,  180,  205 
Williamsburg,  Va.,  30,  32, 

"William  Tell,"  85n.     (See 

"The  Archers") 
Winstanley,  W.,  i88n 
Wolfe,  Gen.  James,  3,  133 
Wood,  W.  B.,  247,  252 
Woodworth,  Samuel,  187, 

i89n,  19011,  ipin 
Woolsey,  Benjamin,  17 
Woolsey,  Elizabeth,  17.  (See 

Mrs.  William  Dunlap) 
Woolsey,  Theodore  D.,  i8n 
Woolsey,  T.  S.,  94,  95n 
Woolsey,  W.  W.,  17,  i8n 
Worcester  Art  Museum,  125 

Yale  University,  17,  iSn,  94, 

204 
"Yankee  Chronology,"  92, 

174-6,  179,  183 
"Yankee  Tars,"  92 
Yorktown,  Battle  of,  74-5, 

i?2,  175 

"Zara,"  194 

Zschokke,  J.  H.  D.,  72,  239 


Bita 

ORAL  SUMNER  COAD  was  born  in  Mount  Pleasant, 
Iowa,  on  December  27,  1887.  His  public  school 
education  was  received  at  Eldon,  Iowa,  and  Gales- 
burg,  Illinois.  In  the  fall  of  1905  he  entered  Knox 
College,  and  graduated  with  the  degree  of  A.B.  in 
1909.  During  the  year  1910-1 1  he  was  a  graduate 
student  at  Columbia  University  in  the  Department 
of  English,  obtaining  the  Master's  Degree  in  June. 
The  next  three  years  were  spent  as  Instructor  in 
English  at  Ohio  Wesleyan  University.  In  the  fall 
of  1914  he  returned  to  Columbia  for  further  study. 
For  1915-16  he  was  appointed  University  Fellow 
in  English.  For  the  following  year  he  was  made 
Instructor  in  English  at  Columbia  College.  Dur 
ing  the  period  of  his  study  under  the  Faculty  of 
Philosophy  in  Columbia  University,  he  pursued 
courses  in  English  and  Comparative  Literature 
under  Professors  W.  P.  Trent,  A.  H.  Thorndike, 
Brander  Matthews,  J.  B.  Fletcher,  W.  W.  Law 
rence,  H.  M.  Ayres,  John  Erskine,  and  G.  P. 
Krapp. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  ^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


•ec'd  circ.  APR 





UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  12/80        BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


€0552567^3 


36449 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


